Claims

Online training was more effective than written manuals for knowledge (SMD 0.99) but showed no difference for clinical behaviour, at very low evidence quality

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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 i3 For knowledge (3 RCTs, n = 180) online training was more effective than a written manual (SMD 0.99; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.96), very low quality evidence. → Richmond Helen 2017 q2 i? For clinical behaviour (2 RCTs, n = 114) online training was no different to a written manual (SMD 0.09; 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46), very low quality evidence. → Richmond Helen 2017

Evidence

Richmond Helen 2017

Richmond Helen, Copsey Bethan, Hall Amanda M., Davies David, Lamb Sarah E. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4

q2 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of three RCTs comparing online training with written manuals in licensed health professionals. Knowledge favoured online with printed effect size SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.02, 1.96), a large effect by the article's own thresholds; clinical behaviour showed no difference (SMD 0.09). All assessments were study-derived self-assessments; estimates judged very low quality.

"For knowledge (3 RCTs, n = 180), we found very low quality evidence that online training was more effective than a manual (SMD 0.99; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.96). For clinical behaviour, we found very low quality evidence that online training was no different to using a written manual (SMD 0.09; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.46)."

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.