Effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in the field of Endodontics to improve educational outcomes compared to traditional learning methods. Randomized controlled studies published in English were identified from two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) up to May 2018. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessed the risk of bias (ROB). Any teaching method using TEL was considered as the intervention, and this was compared to traditional methods. The outcome measuring the effectiveness of learning activities was evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation model. The four levels of training outcomes are as follows: Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and Results. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) by the random effects model. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review. Only three studies were assessed as 'low' ROB. A meta-analysis could not be performed in the domains of Reaction and Behaviour. No significant difference was observed in knowledge gain (Learning domain) between TEL and traditional methods (SMD, 0.14 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.39) I = 62.7%). Similarly, no difference was observed in performance (Behaviour domain). A variable response was found in attitude (Reaction domain). From the available evidence, it can be concluded that TEL is equally as effective as traditional learning methods.

Pre‐clinical endodontic education outcomes between artificial versus extracted natural teeth: a systematic review

“…In a recent systematic review and meta‐analysis, Nagendrababu et al . () reported that the effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning was comparable to that of traditional learning methods. From this, it is clear that the search for an enhancement in teaching methods should incorporate recent advances in technology.…”

“…Currently, information technology has modernized certain aspects of education (Qualtrough 2014), whilst haptic virtual reality (Suebnukarn et al 2011) and videoassisted clinical instruction (Naseri et al 2016) are emerging as alternative educational methods in endodontics. In a recent systematic review and metaanalysis, Nagendrababu et al (2019) reported that the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning was comparable to that of traditional learning methods. From this, it is clear that the search for an enhancement in teaching methods should incorporate recent advances in technology.…”

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

“…). Example 1b : ‘Effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta‐analysis’ (Nagendrababu et al . 2019a). Example 1c : ‘Single‐visit or multiple‐visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis’ (Schwendicke & Göstemeyer ). Example 1d : ‘Efficacy of local anaesthetic solutions on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials’ (Nagendrababu et al .…”

“…Example 1b : ‘Effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta‐analysis’ (Nagendrababu et al . 2019a).…”

“…Example 1a: 'The prevalence of postoperative pain and flare-up in single-and multiple-visit endodontic treatment: a systematic review' (Sathorn et al 2008). Example 1b: 'Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta-analysis' (Nagendrababu et al 2019a).…”