Table 3.

Summary of findings table. Patient or population: health care professionals; Setting: university; Intervention: digital education; Comparison: traditional or no intervention.

Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI)		Number of participants (number of RCTsb)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADEc)	Comments
	Assumed risk with controls	Corresponding risk with electronic learning
Knowledge	The mean outcome score in the control groups was 21.79	The mean knowledge score in the intervention groups was 0.67 SD higher (0.38-0.95 higher)	510 (5)	Lowd,e,f	None
Attitude	The mean outcome score in the control groups was 4.10	The mean attitude score in the intervention groups was 0.67 SD higher (0.25-1.09 higher)	339 (3)	Lowd,e,f	The results of one study (121 participants) were not pooled due to incomplete data
Self-efficacy	The mean outcome score in the control groups was 151.43	The mean self-efficacy score in the intervention groups was 0.47 SD higher (0.16-0.77 higher)	174 (3)	Moderatee,g	None
Skills	The mean outcome score in the control groups was 71	The mean skill score in the intervention groups was 0.94 SD higher (0.11-1.77 higher)	25 (1)	Lowd,e,f	None

^aThe risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

^bRCT: randomized controlled trial.

^cGRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

^dThe heterogeneity was high with large variations in effects and the lack of overlap among CIs.

^eRated down by one level for study limitations. The risk of bias was unclear for allocation concealment in all studies.

^fLow: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

^gModerate: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.