SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Medical education during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Clinical Practice Restriction on Medical Students' Perceptions of Simulation Training: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Learning effect of online versus onsite education in health and medical scholarship - protocol for a cluster randomized trial.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected many aspects of lifestyle and medical education during the recent years. We aimed to determine the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on medical education to provide an overview of systematic reviews on it. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and medRxiv, with the following keywords: "SARS-CoV-2," "COVID-19," "Medical Education," "E-learning," "Distance Education," "Online Learning," "Virtual Education," "systematic review," and "meta-analysis," up to 15 April 2023. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews assessing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical sciences students. We used A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist for quality assessment. Results: A total of 28 systematic reviews were included. The eligible reviews included between five and 64 primary studies, ranging from 897 to 139,381 participants. Technology-enhanced learning and simulation-based learning were the most frequently used strategies. Virtual teaching has several drawbacks like technical difficulties, confidentiality problems, lower student involvement, connection problems, and digital fatigue. The overall satisfaction rate for online learning was above 50%. Also, favorable opinions about perception, acceptability, motivation, and engagement were reported. The quality of 27 studies were critically low and one was low. Conclusion: There were reduced clinical exposure and satisfaction for medical students during the pandemic. Further high-quality systematic reviews are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.