Cochrane · systematic review · CD011736
E‐learning for health professionals
Vaona, A, Banzi, R, Kwag, KH, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Effective Practice and Organisation of CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 25%Low 3 · 75%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings: e‐learning versus traditional learning for health professionals
Population: licensed health professionals (doctors, nurses and allied health professionals fully licensed to practice without supervision)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patient outcomes Summary of findings: e‐learning vs traditional learning | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 168 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Health professionals' behaviours Summary of findings: e‐learning vs traditional learning | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 950 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Health professionals' skills Summary of findings: e‐learning vs traditional learning | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 2912 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Health professionals' knowledge Any Summary of findings: e‐learning vs traditional learning | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 3236 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |