ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Academic Reading Format Preferences Among Syrian Medical Students: A Cross-Institutional Survey.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Eye Strain and Perceived Academic Burden Among Syrian Medical Students: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study of Symptom Burden and Associated Factors.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the global shift toward digital education, many university students continue to report a preference for printed academic materials. In Syria, where higher education has been affected by conflict and variable digital access, understanding students' reading format preferences may help inform more responsive educational planning. This study examined academic reading format preferences, self-reported reading behaviors, and language-related influences among undergraduate medical students across Syrian institutions. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 2,201 undergraduate medical students across Syrian universities was conducted using an adapted Arabic version of the Academic Reading Format International Study (ARFIS) questionnaire, distributed in both digital and paper formats. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Analyses included descriptive statistics, 95% confidence intervals for key proportions, Chi-square tests with Cramér's V, multivariable logistic regression, and Welch ANOVA with Games-Howell post-hoc testing. Results: Most students (81.1%) reported a preference for printed academic materials. Students also reported better perceived focus (79.9%) and recall (72.1%) when reading in print. Despite frequent smartphone use for digital reading, 71.2% of students reported printing digital materials for study. Preference for print was stronger for longer texts (7 pages or more; 65.1%), while language-related responses showed more variable format preferences, including a moderate preference for foreign-language texts in print (41.8%). Adjusted analysis showed that sex, university type, medical specialty, and selected device-use variables were independently associated with print preference. Conclusion: Syrian medical students in this cross-sectional survey most commonly reported a preference for printed academic reading materials, particularly for longer texts and for perceived focus and recall. These findings suggest that student preferences should be considered when planning academic reading resources, while digital integration should account for local context and student access. Because the study relied on self-reported perceptions, non-probability sampling, and a cross-sectional design, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence of objective learning effectiveness. Further longitudinal and experimental research is needed to assess comprehension, academic performance, and the role of digital access barriers.
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.