SynthesisBMJ open2025
Economic evaluations in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMedical education profoundly impacts patients, students, educators and public resources. However, the economic dimensions necessary for informed decision-making remain underexplored. This systematic review examines how economic evaluations are conducted and reported in undergraduate medical education (UME) literature and assesses their quality.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, ERIC, Google Scholar and the CEVR CEA databases were searched on 13 September 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies evaluated interventions within UME and reported (incremental) costs and effects, employing any method such as cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-minimisation analysis or decision-analytic modelling. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Key data, including study characteristics, evaluation type, perspective, intervention details, sensitivity analyses, cost and effect measures, outcomes, expressions of cost-effectiveness and adherence to economic reporting guidelines, were extracted. Quality was assessed using the CHEQUE tool, and the findings were synthesised qualitatively.
resultsOf 6559 studies identified, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies reported costs and effects post-hoc within effectiveness trials, with only one decision-analytic modelling study identified. Evaluated domains included instructional methods, skills training, selection and student health. All but one study adopted a payer (university) perspective, and nearly all focused on short-term outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were rarely performed, and no study achieved full quality scores.
conclusionsEconomic evaluations in UME are scarce and often of limited methodological rigour. A shift towards comprehensive, prospective evaluations is needed to address long-term outcomes, societal perspectives and methodological robustness. Such efforts will enable better resource allocation, enhance the impact of medical education and contribute to a sustainable educational landscape. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023478907.
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.