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¶

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? Five studies meeting the review's highest-quality criteria (RCT, moderate cohort of 30 or more participants, pre-test, no unclear or high risk of bias) all demonstrated no statistically significant differences between EL and TL. → 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 quality-stratified descriptive analysis: studies were deemed highest quality if they were an RCT with "a moderate size cohort of 30 or more participants", a pre-test and no unclear or high risk of bias. All five such studies showed no significant difference.

"Five studies fit within this subgroup, all of which demonstrated no statistically significant differences between EL and TL. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 This supports the suggestion that the two learning resources may be comparable but the heterogeneity within this subgroup precludes any strong conclusions from being drawn."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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
• Retention of knowledge over time showed no statistically significant difference between e-learning and traditional learning in the studies that assessed it — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim