LearningNCT07121400
E-learning Teaching During Anesthesia Residency
A study testing Interactive e-learning-group in people with Learning and Anesthesia, run by University Hospital, Rouen.
Trial summary
E-learning is in expansion although its pedagogical performance has not been validated in the anesthesia residency. E-learning can be divided into passive e-learning; guided e-learning, interactive e-learning, and adaptive e-learning. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Learning, Anesthesia, Resident Education
- What is being tested?
- Interactive e-learning-group
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2016to 30 Jun 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All anesthesiology residents from first to fourth year in both centers (participants)
Who cannot join
- Exclusion criteria included residents missing the pre-or post-tests or refusing to participate in the training program.
About this study
Official title: Pedagogical Impact of Different Levels of E-learning Teaching During Anesthesia Residency: a Randomized Clinical Trial
E-learning is in expansion although its pedagogical performance has not been validated in the anesthesia residency. E-learning can be divided into passive e-learning; guided e-learning, interactive e-learning, and adaptive e-learning. The objective was to compare the impact of passive e-learning versus interactive e-learning on anesthesia residents' acquisition of theoretical knowledge and clinical reasoning.
Read the detailed description
The participants first have a pre-test consisting of a clinical case and a script concordance test (SCT). The clinical case was designed to evaluate theoretical clinical knowledge. The clinical case scored 50 points and consisted of 4 open-ended questions (12,5 points for each question) on the management and complications of the diabetic patient in anesthesia. The SCT consisted of 15 questions on the management of the diabetic patient in anesthesia (degenerative neuropathy, ischemic cardiopathy, intubation, management of hyperglycemia, postoperative complications) and was also scored out of 50 points. The participants had 15 minutes for the clinical case and 15 minutes for the SCT.
The pre-test was conducted in a double-blind way, each participant did not know in which group they would be. Each test had a double-blind correction by two senior anesthesiologists. The participants were then randomized to either the Interactive-EL group (Int-EL group) or a Passive-EL group (Pass-EL group).
The Int-EL group had full access to a pedagogical internet platform with online documents; national experts' recommendations on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia, slide presentation lectures on the topic by local university teachers, and, the possibility to contact a virtual mentor (anaesthesiologist of our department) by email for interactive discussion or questions about the topic.
The Pass-EL group only received by email the documents (French experts' recommendations and slide presentation lectures on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia) and did not have access to the pedagogical internet platform. The e-learning training period was one month for both groups. The investigators then conducted, in both groups, a post-test composed of the same clinical case and the same SCT.
The time allotted for the post-test was identical to that of the pre-test, and students were not allowed to access external resources during either test.
Each test had a double-blind grading by two senior anesthesiologists.
The tests were developed by two experts in anesthesiology and medical education within our department. The participants in the Pass-EL group had the option to access the platform at the end of the study to complete the e-learning course, should they choose to do so.
- Conditions
- Learning, Anesthesia, Resident Education
- Being tested
- Interactive e-learning-group
- Keywords
- E-learning, anesthesia residency, resident education, computer-assisted learning, clinical knowledge assessment
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Interactive e-learning-groupProcedure or surgery
The Interactive-E-learning group had full access to a pedagogical internet platform with online documents; national experts' recommendations on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia, slide presentation lectures on the topic by local university teachers, and, the possibility to contact a virtual mentor (anaesthesiologist of our department) by email for interactive discussion or questions about the topic.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Passive-E-Learning group (received by email the documents and didn't have access to the platform) | No intervention | The Passive-E-Learning group only received by email the documents (French experts' recommendations and slide presentation lectures on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia) and did not have access to the pedagogical internet platform. |
| Interactive-E-Learning group | Experimental | The interactive-E-Learning group (Int-EL group) had full access to a pedagogical internet platform with online documents; national experts' recommendations on the management of the diabetic patient in anesthesia, slides presentation lectures on the topic by local university teachers, and, the possibility to contact a virtual mentor (anaesthesiologist of our department) by email for interactive discussion or questions about the topic. The course website was constructed using an online secured program with a unique identification form and password for each resident of the Int-EL group. Receives: Procedure: Interactive e-learning-group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Comparison of the theoretical clinical knowledge score between the two e-learning groups
The score used was the means of the paired within-subject differences (delta) of clinical knowledge scores (pre-and post-test). The score could range from 0 to 50 points.
Measured: One month after pre-test
Secondary outcomes (5)
The comparison of clinical reasoning scores between the two e-learning groups
Evaluated by the paired within-subject differences (delta) SCT scores (pre-and post-test). The score could range from 0 to 50 points.
Measured: one month
Self-reported difficulty in accessing the pedagogical platform for the Int-EL group and the access to the documents for the Pass-EL group.
"easy", "medium to difficult" and "difficult"
Measured: one month
Self-reported difficulty to validate the MCQs felt by the students of the Int-EL group.
"easy", "medium to difficult" and "difficult"
Measured: one month
Self-reported e-learning usage between the two e-learning groups of the means.
The reporting time of e-learning usage was in minutes
Measured: One month
Student satisfaction score between the two e-learning groups
Satisfaction score ranging from 0 to 10.
Measured: One month
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Aug 2025
- Study start1 Feb 2016
- Primary completion30 Jun 2016
- Study completion30 Jun 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for LearningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The participants were randomized into a Passive E-learning group (Pass-EL group) and a Interactive E-learning group (Int-EL group). The Pass-EL group had documents sent by email and the Int-EL group had access to a pedagogical internet platform. A test composed of one clinical case, evaluating the clinical knowledge, and, 15 script concordance tests (SCT), evaluating the clinical reasoning, was conducted before and after e-learning. The outcome of the comparison was the means of the paired within-subject differences (delta) of clinical knowledge scores (pre-and post-test) between the two groups.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Rouen
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, jean.selim, University Hospital, Rouen
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07121400
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- E2015-53
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 24 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 13 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Selim J, Thill J, Burey J, Besnier E, Lambert M, Lefevre-Scelles A, Abily J, Gastaldi G, Allard E, Hanouz JL, Veber B, Dureuil B, Thill C, Compere V. Pedagogical impact of different levels of e-learning teaching during anesthesia residency: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Med Educ. 2026 Apr 29;26(1):971. doi: 10.1186/s12909-026-09225-4.
PubMed 42056999
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Pedagogical Impact of Different Levels of E-learning Teaching During Anesthesia Residency: a Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07121400
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- E2015-53
- Conditions
- Learning, Anesthesia, Resident Education
- Keywords
- E-learning, anesthesia residency, resident education, computer-assisted learning, clinical knowledge assessment
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, RouenUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
E-learning is in expansion although its pedagogical performance has not been validated in the anesthesia residency. E-learning can be divided into passive e-learning; guided e-learning, interactive e-learning, and adaptive e-learning. The objective was to compare the impact of passive e-learning versus interactive e-learning on anesthesia residents' acquisition of theoretical knowledge and clinical reasoning.
Detailed description
The participants first have a pre-test consisting of a clinical case and a script concordance test (SCT). The clinical case was designed to evaluate theoretical clinical knowledge. The clinical case scored 50 points and consisted of 4 open-ended questions (12,5 points for each question) on the management and complications of the diabetic patient in anesthesia. The SCT consisted of 15 questions on the management of the diabetic patient in anesthesia (degenerative neuropathy, ischemic cardiopathy, intubation, management of hyperglycemia, postoperative complications) and was also scored out of 50 points. The participants had 15 minutes for the clinical case and 15 minutes for the SCT.
The pre-test was conducted in a double-blind way, each participant did not know in which group they would be. Each test had a double-blind correction by two senior anesthesiologists. The participants were then randomized to either the Interactive-EL group (Int-EL group) or a Passive-EL group (Pass-EL group).
The Int-EL group had full access to a pedagogical internet platform with online documents; national experts' recommendations on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia, slide presentation lectures on the topic by local university teachers, and, the possibility to contact a virtual mentor (anaesthesiologist of our department) by email for interactive discussion or questions about the topic.
The Pass-EL group only received by email the documents (French experts' recommendations and slide presentation lectures on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia) and did not have access to the pedagogical internet platform. The e-learning training period was one month for both groups. The investigators then conducted, in both groups, a post-test composed of the same clinical case and the same SCT.
The time allotted for the post-test was identical to that of the pre-test, and students were not allowed to access external resources during either test.
Each test had a double-blind grading by two senior anesthesiologists.
The tests were developed by two experts in anesthesiology and medical education within our department. The participants in the Pass-EL group had the option to access the platform at the end of the study to complete the e-learning course, should they choose to do so.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The participants were randomized into a Passive E-learning group (Pass-EL group) and a Interactive E-learning group (Int-EL group). The Pass-EL group had documents sent by email and the Int-EL group had access to a pedagogical internet platform. A test composed of one clinical case, evaluating the clinical knowledge, and, 15 script concordance tests (SCT), evaluating the clinical reasoning, was conducted before and after e-learning. The outcome of the comparison was the means of the paired within-subject differences (delta) of clinical knowledge scores (pre-and post-test) between the two groups.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Passive-E-Learning group (received by email the documents and didn't have access to the platform) | No intervention | –The Passive-E-Learning group only received by email the documents (French experts' recommendations and slide presentation lectures on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia) and did not have access to the pedagogical internet platform. |
| Interactive-E-Learning group | Experimental | Procedure: Interactive e-learning-groupThe interactive-E-Learning group (Int-EL group) had full access to a pedagogical internet platform with online documents; national experts' recommendations on the management of the diabetic patient in anesthesia, slides presentation lectures on the topic by local university teachers, and, the possibility to contact a virtual mentor (anaesthesiologist of our department) by email for interactive discussion or questions about the topic. The course website was constructed using an online secured program with a unique identification form and password for each resident of the Int-EL group. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All anesthesiology residents from first to fourth year in both centers (participants)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Exclusion criteria included residents missing the pre-or post-tests or refusing to participate in the training program.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive e-learning-groupThe Interactive-E-learning group had full access to a pedagogical internet platform with online documents; national experts' recommendations on the management of diabetic patients in anesthesia, slide presentation lectures on the topic by local university teachers, and, the possibility to contact a virtual mentor (anaesthesiologist of our department) by email for interactive discussion or questions about the topic. | Procedure or surgery | Interactive-E-Learning group |
Primary outcome
Comparison of the theoretical clinical knowledge score between the two e-learning groups
Time frame: One month after pre-test
The score used was the means of the paired within-subject differences (delta) of clinical knowledge scores (pre-and post-test). The score could range from 0 to 50 points.
5 secondary outcomes
The comparison of clinical reasoning scores between the two e-learning groups
Time frame: one month
Self-reported difficulty in accessing the pedagogical platform for the Int-EL group and the access to the documents for the Pass-EL group.
Time frame: one month
Self-reported difficulty to validate the MCQs felt by the students of the Int-EL group.
Time frame: one month
Self-reported e-learning usage between the two e-learning groups of the means.
Time frame: One month
Student satisfaction score between the two e-learning groups
Time frame: One month
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Aug 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42056999Selim J, Thill J, Burey J, Besnier E, Lambert M, Lefevre-Scelles A, Abily J, Gastaldi G, Allard E, Hanouz JL, Veber B, Dureuil B, Thill C, Compere V. Pedagogical impact of different levels of e-learning teaching during anesthesia residency: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Med Educ. 2026 Apr 29;26(1):971. doi: 10.1186/s12909-026-09225-4.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Learning
Not yet recruiting
The Effect Of Low-Fidelity Simulation Education Pressure Injuries
Nursing Education Research, Simulation Based Learning
Not yet recruiting
Effect of a Telerehabilitation-Supported, Family-Centered Early Intervention Program on Neurodevelopmental and Parental Outcomes in Infants at Mild-to-Moderate Risk
Development Delay, Motor Skills Disorders
Active, not recruiting
TuJuggling: Comparing Two Juggling Learning Methods in College Students
Motor Skill Learning, Juggling Performance
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Action Observation and Motor Imagery on PNF Skill Learning in Physiotherapy Students
Motor Skill Learning
Not yet recruiting
Augmented Reality Virtual Patient Simulation to Enhance Social-Emotional Competence and Self-Efficacy in Nursing Students
Nursing Education, Social-Emotional Learning
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Interactive e-learning-group in people with Learning and Anesthesia, run by University Hospital, Rouen.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Comparison of the theoretical clinical knowledge score between the two e-learning groups (time frame: One month after pre-test). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07121400, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Aug 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.