ArticlePloS one2025
Medical students' perception of paid E-learning.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Board exam preparation resource trends in academic health sciences libraries serving colleges of osteopathic medicine programs.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Exploring student perceptions of the Osmosis digital learning platform in undergraduate medical education and its influences on motivation and inclusivity.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn addition to the medical school curriculum, medical students often take the initiative to incorporate external paid digital educational resources, especially during the pandemic. In this study, we organized an exemplary questionnaire method to enable evidence-based decisions before providing paid e-learning resources to medical students.
methodsAn online form was distributed to all registered medical students at a Turkish medical school, and the compiled responses were subjected to statistical analysis. The participants were queried about their general background, post-graduation plans, use of study materials, purpose and perceived benefits of utilizing paid e-learning resources, as well as any financial burden or opinions regarding the associated costs.
resultsA total of 119 medical students participated in the online form. The findings revealed that 87% of the participants reported using paid e-learning resources for school exams, with 71.5% of them indicating an improvement in their exam scores. Approximately 26.1% of the participants did not specify any change. When asked to rate the cost of using paid e-learning resources on a scale of 1 to 10, the average score was 8.6 ± 1.58. Furthermore, 40% of the participants relied on repeated free demo sessions, while only 27% reported paying the fees associated with these resources.
conclusionsWith the evolution of medical education, particularly in the aftermath of the pandemic, medical students are increasingly seeking to supplement their medical curriculum, pursue self-interests, and engage in extracurricular research by utilizing paid e-learning resources. However, the costs associated with these resources often prevent some students from fully benefiting from them. Therefore, it is essential for medical schools to make evidence-based decisions to support their students, recognizing that digitally available resources play an integral role in the assimilation of medical education.
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.