SynthesisInternational endodontic journal2026
Innovative Didactic Learning Formats: Have They Improved Dental Education? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International endodontic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Innovative Didactic Learning Formats: Have They Improved Dental Education? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International endodontic journal · 2026Pooled it
- A Blended Course for Dental Faculty Development in Educational Design and Digital Teaching Practices.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew learning methods require higher professor-to-student ratios, increased faculty preparation time, continuous professional development for educators, and expanded physical spaces within university settings.
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to answer the following PICO question: In dental students (P), what is the effectiveness of innovative formats of learning (I) in comparison with traditional formats (C) in terms of educational outcomes and satisfaction (O)?
methodsAfter PROSPERO protocol registration, a literature search was conducted using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Selection of studies was performed in a three-step process: identification, screening and eligibility. Data was extracted and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to provide an estimate of the effect of innovative teaching formats in dental education. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed to investigate potential differences in effectiveness based on the type of innovative teaching intervention.
resultsOne hundred and nineteen studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of 23 studies (1074 students in the control and 1021 in the experimental group) revealed significant differences in favour of innovative teaching methods (p < 0.00001) with considerable heterogeneity (χ
conclusionsInnovative strategies lead to superior knowledge acquisition in comparison with traditional methods. Subgroup analyses favoured synchronous blended learning, but both asynchronous independent learning and synchronous learning formats, whether implemented in large-group settings via blended approaches or in small-group environments, are more effective than traditional instruction.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42024569691).
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.