ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Exploring the role of digital technology for feedback exchange in clinical training: a scoping review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blended and digital approaches in histology and pathology teaching: A scoping review.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Postgraduate General Practice Training Under Early Clinical Responsibility: A Narrative Review on System-Based Supervision and the Supportive Role of Artificial Intelligence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Critical thinking gamification in medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence, extended reality, and emerging AI-XR integrations in medical education.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFeedback plays an integral role in clinical training and can profoundly impact students' motivation and academic progression. The shift to online teaching, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted the necessity of transitioning traditional feedback mechanisms to digital platforms. Despite this, there is still a lack of clarity regarding effective strategies and tools for delivering digital feedback in clinical education. This scoping review aimed to assess the current utilization of digital feedback methods in clinical education, with a focus on identifying potential directions for future research and innovation.
methodsA database search using a published protocol based on the Joanna Briggs Institute framework was conducted between January 2010 and December 2023. Six databases were searched, PubMed/MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Google Scholar, Union Catalogue of Theses and Dissertations, and WorldCat Dissertations and Theses. Reviewers independently screened the papers against eligibility criteria and discussed the papers to attain consensus. Extracted data were analyzed qualitatively and descriptively.
resultsOf the 2412 records identified, 33 reports met the inclusion criteria. Digital tools explored for feedback included web-based and social sites, smart device applications, virtual learning environments, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence. Convenience and immediate, personalized feedback and enhanced formative assessment outcomes were major facilitators of digital feedback utility. Technical constraints, limited content development, training, and data security issues hindered the adoption of these tools. Reports mostly comprised empirical research, published in the global North and conducted on undergraduates studying medicine.
conclusionThis review highlighted a geographical imbalance in research on feedback exchange via digital tools for clinical training and stressed the need for increased studies in the global South. Furthermore, there is a call for broader exploration across other health professions and postgraduate education. Additionally, student perceptions of digital tools as intrusive necessitate a balanced integration with traditional feedback dialogues. The incorporation of virtual reality and artificial intelligence presents promising opportunities for personalized, real-time feedback, but requires vigilant governance to ensure data integrity and privacy. SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02151-8.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.