Claims

Video review improves patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4) in the single study reporting this level

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Robbrecht M 2025: the intervention came bundled with another change (self-reflection and feedback) (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-31)

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? In the only study reporting Kirkpatrick level 4 outcomes, the video review group showed greater increase in akinesia score, greater decrease in procedure duration and lesser need for supplemental injection, all significant. → Robbrecht M 2025

Evidence

Robbrecht M 2025

Robbrecht M, Van Winckel M, Mulder A, Embo M. (2025). What is the learning effect of video review in postgraduate medical education: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06515-7

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The review reports that Guerrier et al.'s study of anaesthesia residents performing an anaesthetic bloc, recorded twice with a 7-day gap, is the only included study with Kirkpatrick level 4 outcomes; "All of these differences were significant."

"The video review group engaged in self-reflection and feedback, and showed a greater increase in “akinesia score”, greater decrease in duration of procedure and lesser need for supplemental injection on day five compared to the non-video review group. All of these differences were significant."

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.