Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Comparative effectiveness of game-based learning modalities in nursing and medical education: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Game-based learning (GBL) is increasingly used in healthcare education, but educators must choose among diverse modalities (e.g., quiz platforms, apps, serious games and metaverse environments). Comparative evidence on which modalities perform best across learning domains (knowledge, attitudes, and practice) remains limited. AIM: To compare the effects of distinct GBL modalities on knowledge, attitudes, and practice outcomes in nursing and medical education and to explore whether comparative effects differ by learner group (pre-licensure students and in-service professionals). DESIGN: PRISMA-NMA-aligned systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched eight databases and trial registries through September 2, 2024, for randomized controlled trials comparing GBL with traditional teaching (TT). Outcomes were transformed to a 0-100 scale and analysed as change from baseline in Bayesian consistency models; random-effects models were selected using deviance information criterion (DIC). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. We report mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) versus TT, ranking probabilities, and subgroup NMAs by learner group. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs (n = 3439) were included; 15 contributed complete data to the network. Risk of bias was low in 15 trials and raised some concerns in 16. The network was modest for knowledge (11 trials) and sparse for attitudes (3) and practice (4). Compared with TT, metaverse-based learning showed improved attitudes (MD 15; 95% CrI 12 to 18), based on a single trial. For knowledge and practice, Kahoot-based quizzes (MD 9.1; 95% CrI -8.9 to 27) and app-based learning (MD 4.6; 95% CrI -4.4 to 14) had the highest estimated mean improvements, but credible intervals were wide and included the null for most comparisons. Subgroup rankings differed by learner group, but several comparisons were imprecise and uncertainty was substantial, particularly in sparse networks. CONCLUSIONS: GBL modalities may improve learning outcomes compared with TT, but relative effects appear domain-specific and the certainty of rankings is limited by sparse evidence and imprecision. Future trials should prioritise head-to-head comparisons, robust outcome measurement, and longer-term retention and transfer outcomes in both student and in-service populations.

Humans

Molecular targeted therapy in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer (PROC): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although single-agent chemotherapy is the most common approach for treating platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer (PROC), there is growing evidence that combining molecular targeted agents with chemotherapy is beneficial, especially for certain patient groups. However, the most effective combination regimen remains elusive. OBJECTIVES: This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to identify the best combination therapy for PROC. METHODS: Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception until October 2024. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs). Statistical analyses were performed using the GEMTC package (1.0-2) and R 4.2.0. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023428414). RESULTS: Our analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3408) demonstrated that chemotherapy combinations with bevacizumab (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52-0.65), sorafenib (HR = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.93) or adavosertib (HR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.35-0.90) significantly improved OS and PFS versus chemotherapy alone. Notably, adavosertib + gemcitabine was associated with an increased risk of grade 3-4 AEs (relative risk (RR) = 1.8, 95%CI: 1.3-2.7), but these were generally manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab-based combinations demonstrate consistent benefits across multiple regimens for PROC. Paclitaxel + bevacizumab emerges as the optimal balance of efficacy and safety. Topotecan + sorafenib could be an alternative for patients who are ineligible for anti-angiogenic therapy.

Humans