ArticleCureus2024
Structured Online Systematic Review Training for Medical Students: An Elective Module in Physiology.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 Recently, elective posting has been introduced by the National Medical Commission (NMC) of India in the undergraduate competency-based medical education (CBME) curriculum. To successfully implement it in medical colleges, facilitators (medical teachers) need to commit extra time. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of online teaching-learning methods for implementing an elective module for undergraduate medical students at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. Methods An online module for systematic review methods was developed using the Delphi method. This module was used to train 30 medical students divided into six groups. One resident and one faculty facilitated each group. After the elective program of 15 days, program feedback and evaluation using the Kirkpatrick model were obtained from the students. Results A total of 30 undergraduate medical students with a mean age of 22.7±0.95 years participated in the study. All of them successfully conducted a systematic review per group. The students' feedback was 86.33% positive, and the project evaluation showed an 84% positive opinion. The highest score was for understanding, facilitators' knowledge, and experience. The lowest score was for the immediate applicability of the knowledge. Conclusion An online systematic review training module can be used for elective teaching-learning for final-year medical students, particularly within limited time and resource constraints. Students appreciated the module's clear objectives, appropriate complexity, and facilitators' expertise, leading to improved communication, engagement, and critical-thinking skills. Despite some limitations, these findings suggest that online learning can complement traditional methods and address logistical challenges in medical education, warranting further research on its long-term impact and broader applicability.
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.