Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emerg Med Australas. 2022 Jun;34(3):322-332. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13936. Epub 2022 Feb 27.
E-learning (EL) has been developing as a medical education resource since the arrival of the internet. The COVID-19 pandemic has minimised clinical exposure for medical trainees and forced educators to use EL to replace traditional learning (TL) resources. The aim of this review was to determine the impact of EL versus TL on emergency medicine (EM) learning outcomes of medical trainees. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement using articles sourced from CINAHL, Embase, OVID Medline and PubMed. Articles were independently reviewed by two reviewers following strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The search yielded a total of 1586 non-duplicate studies. A total of 19 studies were included for data extraction. Fifteen of the included studies assessed knowledge gain of participants using multiple-choice questions as an outcome measure. Eleven of the 15 demonstrated no statistically significant difference while two studies favoured EL with statistical significance and two favoured TL with statistical significance. Six of the included studies assessed practical skill gain of participants. Five of the six demonstrated no statistical significance while one study favoured EL with statistical significance. This systematic review suggests that EL may be comparable to TL for the teaching of EM. The authors encourage the integration of EL as an adjunct to face-to-face teaching where possible in EM curricula; however, the overall low quality of evidence precludes definitive conclusions from being drawn.
电子学习（EL）自互联网问世以来一直作为医学教育资源而发展。COVID-19 大流行使医学实习生的临床实习机会减少，并迫使教育工作者使用 EL 代替传统学习（TL）资源。本综述的目的是确定 EL 与 TL 对医学实习生的急诊医学（EM）学习成果的影响。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目声明，使用来自 CINAHL、Embase、OVID Medline 和 PubMed 的文章进行了系统评价。文章由两名审查员根据严格的纳入和排除标准进行独立审查。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚。搜索共产生了 1586 篇非重复研究。共有 19 项研究纳入了数据提取。其中 15 项研究使用多项选择题评估了参与者的知识增益作为结果衡量标准。11 项研究无统计学意义差异，而 2 项研究支持 EL 具有统计学意义，2 项研究支持 TL 具有统计学意义。纳入的 6 项研究评估了参与者的实践技能增益。其中 5 项研究无统计学意义差异，而 1 项研究支持 EL 具有统计学意义。本系统评价表明，EL 可能与 TL 一样适合 EM 的教学。作者鼓励在 EM 课程中尽可能将 EL 整合为面对面教学的辅助手段；然而，总体证据质量低，无法得出明确的结论。
