Claims

For life support skills education, two of three studies showed no significant EL–TL difference while one study favoured e-learning for basic life support (P < 0.0001)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · 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.

q2 i? Within the life support skills group, two of three studies showed no statistically significant difference between EL and TL, and one study favoured EL over TL for basic life support education (P < 0.0001). → 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? · review · r3

Review's descriptive subgroup analysis of three articles comparing EL and TL for life support skills (advanced cardiac life support, basic life support and cardiac arrest). The review notes "there was still significant heterogeneity between studies" within this group.

"Two of the three studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference between EL and TL. One study demonstrated a statistically significant difference, favouring EL over TL for basic life support education (P < 0.0001). 34"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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