For investigation interpretation training, six of seven studies showed no significant EL–TL difference while one study favoured traditional learning for EFAST training (P < 0.05)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Six of seven investigation-interpretation studies (ABG, ECG, ultrasound, EFAST) showed no statistically significant difference between EL and TL; one favoured TL over EL for EFAST training (P < 0.05). → Alexander J Savage 2022

Evidence¶

Alexander J Savage 2022¶

Alexander J Savage, Patrick W McNamara, Thomas W Moncrieff, Gerard M O'Reilly. (2022). E‐learning in emergency medicine: A systematic review. Emergency Medicine Australasia. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13936

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Review's descriptive subgroup analysis of seven articles on investigation interpretation (ABG and ECG interpretation, ultrasound and EFAST skills). The review notes "marked heterogeneity between sub‐topics as well as how information was delivered and tested".

"Six of the seven studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference between EL and TL. One study demonstrated a statistically significant difference, favouring TL over EL for EFAST training (P < 0.05). 33"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For knowledge gain in emergency medicine, 11 of 15 studies showed no statistically significant difference between e-learning and traditional learning, with two favouring each modality — related
• The five highest-quality studies (RCTs with 30 or more participants, a pre-test, and no unclear or high risk of bias) all showed no statistically significant EL–TL difference — a broader claim this one bears on
• Retention of knowledge over time showed no statistically significant difference between e-learning and traditional learning in the studies that assessed it — related