Content area

Abstract

Background

The use of electronic or digital resources has been shown to be effective in improving knowledge retention and skills development through many fields of medical education. Few systematic reviews have studied the effects of electronic learning (‘e-learning’) compared to traditional learning methods in anaesthesia education. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies assessing learning outcomes from e-learning modalities compared to ‘traditional’, face-to-face or didactic teaching methods.

Methods

Medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Scopus, CENTRAL, Google Scholar) were searched for applicable studies from January 2002 to January 2023 on the 12th of February 2023. Studies comparing an ‘e-learning arm’ against a ‘traditional learning’ arm including anaesthetic doctors of any level within the study population were considered and assessed for inclusion. The systematic review tool Covidence™ was utilised to track studies for inclusion, results were synthesised be each reviewer prior to independent assessment for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool ‘RoB-2’.

Results

Our search strategy identified 1681 papers for review. Thirteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, assessing 572 health practitioners at varying stages of their clinical careers. Four eligible studies showed a statistically significant difference in their primary outcomes favouring e-learning, while one study found e-learning non-inferior to traditional learning. Three studies found a statistically significant change in favour of traditional learning and the remaining five studies did not find a significant difference when comparing e-learning and traditional learning. Qualitative analysis of various secondary outcomes (where applicable) found considerable variation regarding participant preference in favour of both traditional and e-learning models.

Conclusion

E-learning is an important adjunct to traditional learning methods and when undertaken in the appropriate clinical teaching context, outcomes from e-learning programs can outperform those from traditional learning methodologies. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the research and shows no consistent benefit to either e-learning or traditional learning. Further research is required to explore the most effective teaching contexts and the efficient implementation of different e-learning modalities in anaesthesia.

Registration

This systematic review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (reference: CRD42023399129).

(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023399129).

Twitter

https://x.com/abcsofa.

Details

1009240
Title
Electronic learning methods compared to traditional learning methods in anaesthesia education: a systematic review
Publication title
Volume
25
Pages
1-10
Number of pages
11
Publication year
2025
Publication date
2025
Section
Research
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
Place of publication
London
Country of publication
Netherlands
e-ISSN
14726920
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
Document type
Journal Article
Publication history
 
 
Online publication date
2025-10-21
Milestone dates
2025-02-05 (Received); 2025-06-06 (Accepted); 2025-10-21 (Published)
Publication history
 
 
   First posting date
21 Oct 2025
ProQuest document ID
3268438718
Document URL
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/electronic-learning-methods-compared-traditional/docview/3268438718/se-2?accountid=208611
Copyright
© 2025. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Last updated
2025-11-06
Database
2 databases
  • Coronavirus Research Database
  • ProQuest One Academic