Claims

Digital learning resources show no between-group difference compared with clinical practice guidelines in most studies

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Four of five studies comparing DLRs to the use of clinical practice guidelines found no between-group difference; one found significant knowledge and self-reported competence gains for interactive web-based training over guideline-only. → Bakkum 2019

Evidence

Bakkum 2019

Bakkum, M.J., Tichelaar, J., Wellink, A., Richir, M.C. & van Agtmael, M.A. (2019). Digital Learning to Improve Safe and Effective Prescribing: A Systematic Review. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1549

q3 · i? · review · r3

Review synthesis of head-to-head comparisons against clinical practice guidelines. The review reports "Four of five studies comparing DLRs to the use of clinical practice guidelines found no between‐group difference"; the exception reported higher knowledge (8.4 ± 0.8 vs. 6.1 ± 1.3 on a 9-question scale) after interactive web-based training on opioid prescribing.

"Four of five studies comparing DLRs to the use of clinical practice guidelines found no between‐group difference."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.