Leveraging Technology to Enhance Medical Education and Competency Deve

Introduction

The practical training of healthcare students and professionals is a critical determinant of the quality and safety of patient care in modern medical systems. In recent decades, this foundational field has undergone a profound transformation, driven by the relentless pace of technological innovation. This shift from a paradigm rooted in traditional classroom instruction and apprenticeships toward digitally enhanced learning environments presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant implementation challenges for educational institutions globally.^1,2

The integration of digital tools is revolutionizing the delivery of medical knowledge and skills. A wide array of technologies—from simulation-based learning and virtual reality (VR) to e-learning platforms, mobile applications, and more recently, artificial intelligence (AI) encompassing adaptive learning and generative AI—has been increasingly adopted, with numerous studies demonstrating their potential to improve knowledge acquisition, clinical reasoning, and psychomotor skills.^3,4 Despite this promising potential, the practical and sustainable integration of these technologies into medical curricula remains a complex undertaking. Significant barriers persist, including high associated costs, infrastructural limitations, a lack of specialized faculty training, and insufficient empirical evidence for the long-term efficacy of many newer tools.^5,6 These challenges often hinder technologies from progressing beyond the experimental “innovation” stage to achieving scalable and sustainable adoption.⁷

Consequently, educators, administrators, and policymakers often face considerable uncertainty when making strategic decisions about which technologies are most effective, cost-efficient, and aligned with long-term educational outcomes.⁸ This decision-making process is further complicated by a body of literature that, while rich in focused studies, lacks a comprehensive and longitudinal synthesis. Specifically, there is a conspicuous gap in understanding the broader trajectory of technological trends over time and in identifying which tools have demonstrated the most transformative and lasting impact on medical education.⁹ This gap is particularly salient in the context of rapidly emerging fields like AI, which are transforming educational practices but lack comprehensive historical contextualization within the broader evolution of medical education technology.

Previous systematic reviews have made valuable contributions but have typically concentrated on specific technological subsets or constrained timeframes. For instance, some reviews have focused exclusively on virtual patients,¹⁰ while others have compared online and offline learning modalities¹¹ or examined the efficacy of a single technology, such as VR.¹² While these focused approaches provide depth in their respective niches, they leave an overarching gap in the literature.¹³ A holistic, longitudinal analysis that maps the evolution of educational technology from the early days of computer-assisted instruction to the contemporary era is necessary to contextualize current innovations and inform future strategic directions. To address this identified gap, this systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive longitudinal analysis of technology trends in medical science education from 1978 to 2024. The primary objectives are to:

1. Systematically identify and categorize the most influential educational technologies adopted during this period.
2. Analyze their reported effects on learning outcomes, competency development, and educational practices.
3. Synthesize the recurring challenges, strengths, and weaknesses associated with their integration.

By offering this historical perspective and synthesizing evidence across nearly five decades, this review provides a unique evidence base to guide educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers in making informed, strategic investments in educational technology. It ultimately seeks to contribute to the overarching goal of maximizing academic return on investment and to equip future healthcare professionals with the competencies required in an increasingly digital healthcare landscape.

Materials and Methods

This systematic review addressed specific research questions by following a structured, reproducible search and screening process in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.¹⁴ The review was designed to include studies exploring the use of emerging technology trends in medical education. Studies were systematically identified, reviewed, and coded for inductive thematic synthesis. In total, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative synthesis.

Search Strategy

The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. In August 2024, the following electronic databases were searched: Scopus, ERIC, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, and JSTOR. The search covered studies published between 1978 and 2024, corresponding to the introduction of computer-assisted instruction in medical education (late 1970s) and continuing through the contemporary era of digital innovation.

A comprehensive search query was developed using a combination of MeSH terms and Boolean operators, incorporating keywords such as “new trend”, “e-learning”, and “medical education”. Synonyms for “new trend” included “emerging trend”, “evolving trend”, “novel trend”, “contemporary trend”, and “current trend”. The medical education context was captured using terms such as “medical education”, “clinical education”, “surgical education”, “health education”, and related phrases. E-learning‐related terms included “online learning”, “distance learning”, “blended learning”, “technology‐enhanced learning”, “virtual reality”, and “computer‐assisted instruction”. For example, in Scopus, the following query was applied: (“new trend” OR “emerging trend” OR “evolving trend” OR “novel trend” OR “contemporary trend*” OR “recent trend*” OR “current trend*”) AND (“clinical education” OR “surgical education” OR “health education” OR “dental education” OR “medical education” OR “medical training” OR “medical curriculum”) AND (“e-learning” OR “online learning” OR “distance learning” OR “blended learning” OR “hybrid learning” OR “technology-enhanced learning” OR “computer-assisted instruction” OR “virtual reality”).

While the core search concepts remained consistent, the specific query syntax (including the use of MeSH terms, keywords, and field tags) was adapted to the requirements of each database to optimize retrieval. The full search strategy for all databases is provided in Supplementary File 2.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria required that studies specifically address emerging trends in e-learning or technology-enhanced learning in medical education settings. Studies of any country, language, or publication date were considered if they were peer-reviewed journal articles or doctoral dissertations. Exclusion criteria were applied to studies not directly related to e-learning in medical education, as well as editorials, commentaries, book chapters, and articles lacking a primary focus on novel technology trends or innovation. Studies specifically address e-learning or technology-enhanced learning trends, with an emphasis on technologies characterized as “emerging”, “novel”, or “innovative” within the context of their publication period.

Selection and Coding Process

A total of 1530 records were retrieved, with 604 duplicates removed, resulting in 926 titles and abstracts screened. Of these, 878 articles not related to new e-learning trends in medical education were excluded. Full‐text reviews of 48 articles were conducted, leading to the exclusion of 30 articles after applying relevance criteria. Eighteen studies remained and were included in the final qualitative analysis.

The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers to minimize bias. The process began with a calibration exercise in which both reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and extraction protocol to a pilot sample of 5 studies. They then met to compare their results, resolving any differences through discussion to ensure a consistent approach. Following this calibration, the reviewers separately screened the remaining titles/abstracts and full texts, and independently extracted data from the included studies. Throughout the main phase, any disagreements were documented and resolved by consensus, with a third senior reviewer consulted if needed.

Qualitative Analysis

For the scope of this review, “educational technology” is defined as the systematic application of knowledge and resources to create tools and environments that facilitate learning. This encompasses both overarching technological paradigms (eg, e-learning, simulation-based learning) and the specific tools that instantiate them (eg, the Moodle LMS, Zoom software). Furthermore, “Web 2.0” is operationalized as the second generation of web development that emphasizes user-generated content, interoperability, and participatory culture, which in an educational context includes tools such as blogs, wikis, and social media platforms that enable collaborative learning.

The included studies were analyzed and coded according to predefined parameters, including: the educational technology or tool described; its application and context in medical education; reported learning outcomes or educational impacts; and documented strengths, weaknesses, and implementation challenges. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify, analyze, and report patterns within the data. The coding process was collaborative and iterative. An initial codebook was developed by two authors after a preliminary review of a subset of included studies. These two authors then independently applied the codebook to the complete set of studies. To ensure coding consistency, the two authors independently coded the studies, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus with the research team. The analysis was facilitated by Microsoft Excel for data organization and management. The initial codes were subsequently grouped into broader thematic categories to structure the synthesis presented in the results.

Search Outcome

The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) summarizes the search and selection process. Of the 1530 retrieved records, 926 titles and abstracts were screened after duplicates were removed. Following the exclusion of 878 irrelevant titles and assessment of 48 full texts, a final set of 18 studies was included in the qualitative synthesis. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies.

Table 1 Characteristics of Included Studies

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the included studies in this review.

Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of each included study was assessed using standardized appraisal tools appropriate to the study design: STROBE for observational and descriptive studies, MMAT for mixed-methods studies, and the CASP Cohort Study checklist for cohort studies. Two independent reviewers (the first and second authors) conducted the assessments and resolved discrepancies through discussion with a research methodology expert to ensure high rigor and reliability.

Data Extraction

Data were extracted using structured forms in Microsoft Excel. Extracted variables included author, publication year, country, study design, medical discipline, and technology type and application (Table 1). A second dataset (Table 2) summarizes technology trends and examples applied in medical education from 1978 to 2024, providing a longitudinal perspective on technological evolution.

Table 2 Technological Trends in Medical Education During the Period 1978–2024

Results

Descriptive Data of the Reviewed Articles

The data from 18 articles relevant to the objectives of this study were extracted and analyzed. The year 2021 represented the peak of publication activity, with five articles, reflecting heightened scholarly attention likely associated with the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on educational practice and the accelerated adoption of online technologies. Additional contributions appeared in 2017 and 2010, with two articles each, while 1978, 1998, 2000, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2022, 2023, and 2024 each had a single publication.

Review articles comprised the majority (n = 11), followed by six empirical research articles and one letter to the editor, indicating a predominance of conceptual and synthesis-based scholarship in this area. Moreover, six studies were characterized as either quantitative or qualitative research.

The geographic distribution of the included studies was diverse, reflecting the global relevance of educational technology. The United States accounted for six publications, followed by Taiwan, Malaysia, China, France, Germany, England, Korea, Romania, India, and Pakistan, each contributing one article. Two studies did not specify their country of origin. This spread underscores the international nature of research dedicated to technology integration in medical education.

Technological trends were examined across a range of medical science disciplines. The majority were conducted in medical schools, with specific focus areas including urology (2 studies), surgery, emergency medicine, immunology, histology, pharmacology, nursing, dentistry (3 studies), and health centres (1 study). Six studies did not report a specific field of application. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the studies included in this review.

Description of Various Technologies and Technological Trends in Medical Education

Data analysis of the reviewed articles revealed the utilization of a wide array of educational technologies. The reviewed articles were categorized into three primary technology groups:

1. Classic Educational Technologies: Traditional one-way instructional media, including PowerPoint presentations, films, books, and pamphlets ²⁵
2. Digital and Interactive Educational Technologies: Interactive platforms promoting learner engagement, such as serious games, simulations, virtual patients, workshops, and podcasts.^{15,16,18,20,22,23,25,30}
3. Supporting and Auxiliary Educational Technologies: Tools facilitating learning and assessment, including learning management systems, video conferencing programs, computers, 3D animations, websites, computer-assisted learning, and augmented reality.^20,23,25,32 Table 2 summarises the technological trends between 1978 and 2024.

Table 2 demonstrates substantial variability in the educational technologies cited throughout the review period, ranging from early computer‐based instruction to modern technologies such as simulation, virtual reality, and academic applications of social media. Table 3 lists the predominant technologies and trends identified during this timeframe.

Table 3 Findings on Technology Types and Common Trends Over the Period 1978–2024

As detailed in Table 3, e-learning and simulation technologies were the most frequently cited tools, appearing approximately eight times each with multiple examples, indicating their central and sustained role in the field since the late 1970s. While computer-based learning emerged as a persistent trend, more recent years have seen a prominent rise in online teaching platforms, blended learning, and digital assessment tools.

A considerable number of studies have addressed e-learning modalities, including distance learning and online service delivery, under various labels.^{15,20,21,28,30} Wireless clinical data access,²³ synchronous/asynchronous/blended formats,^28,32 and inter-professional collaboration^27,31 were also highlighted. The progression toward mobile learning, personalized delivery, and technology-enhanced learning (TEL) further illustrates the field’s shift toward flexible instructional models.^22,24

Other technologies included webinars, virtual conference broadcasting,^23,27 MOOCs,²⁴ and diverse blended learning strategies.^23,24,26,28 Concerning assessment, studies referred to online formative testing,^23,28 E-OSCE formats, e-portfolios, discussion-forum evaluations, and electronic testing systems,^22,28,31 as well as Google Forms and WebQuest tools.^20,30

A variety of LMS platforms (eg, Moodle, ILIAS),^23,24,26,28 video conferencing applications (Zoom, Skype, Google Meet),^24,28 educational repositories, and hypertext systems were also identified.^15,28 Technologies for collaborative learning through social media (Facebook, YouTube),^24,26,29 podcasts,^23,29 and interactive multimedia tools^18,24,28 were emphasized.

Simulation technologies included both traditional formats (moulages, manikins, cadavers) used to train airway and anesthesia skills¹⁹ and advanced, high-fidelity simulations that replicate clinical scenarios.^18,30 Contemporary innovations such as CASE systems, virtual and augmented reality simulations, and video-assisted reality simulators in laparoscopic surgery were frequently documented.^{19,25,28,30,31} Standardized and virtual patients also represented important instructional and evaluation tools.^24,31

The Utilization and Description of Mentioned Technologies

The selected articles described the practical applications of each technology in line with the studied trend. Major technological applications are detailed in Supplementary Table 1, illustrating diverse implementations across the review period (1978–2024).

Limitations Raised in the Research Reviewed

Several methodological limitations were noted, including restricted database access,²⁶ single-language publications,³¹ geographically narrow sampling,²⁴ lack of empirical validation,²² and low response rates.²⁹ These constraints may limit the generalizability and comprehensiveness of reported findings.

Strengths of New Technologies From a Research Perspective

Emerging medical technologies have strengthened diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making.¹⁶ In disciplines such as anatomy, interactive 3D visualizations provide a superior learning experience compared to traditional 2D modalities, while simulation-based education enhances patient safety and procedural competence.¹⁸ Web-based technologies expand accessibility, flexibility, and learner autonomy, thereby supporting key competencies required in contemporary medical education.^23,33,34

Weaknesses of New Technologies From a Research Perspective

The successful implementation of technology-enhanced learning depends on robust infrastructure and ICT access, which may not be uniformly available.²³ Technical barriers, decreased motivation due to limited social interaction, and insufficient educator training may compromise learning outcomes.^28,34 Specifically, a notable gap exists in the empirical validation of newer tools like Web 2.0 technologies, where studies often focus on implementation rather than a rigorous assessment of learning outcomes.³¹

Predicted Trends About the Future of Technology in the Research Studied

Multiple studies provided forward-looking perspectives on emerging technologies and anticipated developments across the review period. Table 4 summarizes key projected trends and evaluates their degree of realisation between 1978 and 2024.

Table 4 Topics/Trends Predicted by Article Authors Over the Period 1978–2024

Discussion

This systematic review aimed to 1) identify and categorize influential educational technologies, 2) analyze their reported effects on learning outcomes and competency development, and 3) synthesize the recurring challenges and strengths associated with their integration. The following discussion interprets our findings in relation to these objectives, organized around six major thematic trends that emerged from the analysis over the review period. It highlights a paradigm shift in the utilization of technology for medical education, a transformation that was particularly accelerated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁹ This period reinforced the importance of adaptable instructional models and catalyzed the widespread adoption of web-based instructional approaches that had been developing for years. The rise of computer technology and internet-based applications has expanded the potential of e-learning and catalyzed the transformation of medical training worldwide. However, concerns remain about the over-reliance on simulation technologies, which have evolved from cadaver- and mannequin-based models to computer-based and augmented reality simulations.^32,41,51,52 The following six thematic areas represent major trends identified in this review.

Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) Programs

The integration of computers and educational software is significantly reshaping medical curricula. CAI programs enable learners to study at their own pace, encounter rare clinical scenarios, and benefit from enhanced faculty–student interaction.^15,16 Fluency with ICT terminology, clinical databases, and decision-support systems has consequently become essential for educators and medical professionals. Computer-based learning promotes wider distribution of educational material without proportionally increasing staffing needs and facilitates rapid curricular revisions aligned with evolving medical knowledge. These developments support prior research, indicating that continuous advancement in information and communication technology (ICT) will remain a defining feature of future medical education.^21,26

Web 2.0 Tools and Learner-Centric Education

The evolution of web-based education has paralleled the growing interest in Web 2.0 tools that support interactive, learner-centered pedagogies. This review found that platforms such as social media and online educational environments have had notable impacts, particularly among millennial learners in pharmacy and medicine.^15,16,18 Despite proven benefits in confidence building and knowledge retention, persistent barriers—including high communication costs, weak ICT infrastructure, linguistic challenges, and limited faculty training in developing countries—continue to impede widespread adoption of e-learning. Nonetheless, the ongoing refinement of Web 2.0 technologies holds promise for creating engaging, customizable learning environments tailored to the digital generation.^19,21,23,30

Blended Learning and Collaborative Education

Blended learning has emerged as a dominant educational strategy, integrating online technologies with traditional face-to-face instruction to support flexible, collaborative learning. Evidence indicates that blended approaches enhance learner satisfaction, interaction, and critical thinking, while flipped classroom formats further improve motivation and academic performance. The pandemic did not create new trends but rather markedly accelerated the adoption of pre-existing strategies, such as blended and virtual assessment approaches, especially in dental and clinical education.^{23,24,26,28,31}

Enriching the Educational Landscape with Digital Tools

Digital tools have enriched medical education by providing supplementary, learner-friendly resources.⁵³ The reviewed studies highlighted diverse modalities such as social media, audiovisual technologies, educational podcasts, and interactive multimedia formats. Utilization of 3D animation and CD-ROM-based learning modules has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to conventional instructional techniques. The pandemic further catalyzed the incorporation of platforms such as YouTube, supporting on-demand, globally accessible content and reinforcing the shift toward scalable, technology-enabled learning.^{23,24,26,27,29,30}

Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)

The expansion of online education has driven widespread adoption of learning management systems and virtual platforms.^54,55 These support remote teaching, learner tracking, and faculty–student interaction, enhancing access in undergraduate and postgraduate programs.⁵⁶ Examples such as multicenter online training initiatives in urology facilitate national and international collaboration, with evidence suggesting improved knowledge assessment scores among learners participating in virtual lecture series. Consequently, VLEs represent a critical infrastructure for contemporary medical education delivery.^13,18,29

Simulation-Based Medical Education (SBME)

Simulation-based education continues to evolve as a foundation of competency-based clinical training. Modern SBME integrates high-fidelity manikins, virtual reality (VR),⁵⁷ augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence to provide immersive, feedback-rich experiences. These environments allow learners to practice critical procedures safely, reflecting a broader shift toward outcome-driven, performance-based assessment frameworks.^58–61 Simulation thus supports mastery of essential clinical competencies and aligns with the professional expectations of next-generation healthcare practitioners.^{18,19,24,25,28,30,31}

Implications for Practice

These findings underscore the need for strategic, evidence-based technology integration in medical education. Institutions should adopt flexible instructional designs, including blended and cooperative e-learning models, and implement continuous evaluation mechanisms to assess their educational impact. To guide policymakers and curriculum designers, investments should focus on simulation technology, virtual patients, and informatics training to prepare learners for digitally mediated clinical practice. Furthermore, expanding research collaborations, increasing sample diversity, and supporting multilingual and multicenter studies can enhance generalizability and inform policy-level decisions.

Limitations

Although this systematic review incorporated comprehensive search strategies, potential limitations include publication bias, exclusion of non-indexed studies, and language restrictions. Additionally, rapid technological evolution means new studies may emerge that further contextualize or expand the current findings. While this review provides a comprehensive longitudinal analysis of major technological trends, the search strategy was designed around broad pedagogical concepts (eg, “e-learning”, “simulation”) to ensure consistency across a 46-year period. Consequently, it may not have fully captured the most recent and rapidly emerging body of literature specifically focused on artificial intelligence (AI), large language models, and generative AI, which have gained prominence predominantly in the latter part of our review window. This represents a limitation and a compelling avenue for future research; a dedicated systematic review focusing exclusively on the trajectory, implementation, and impact of AI in medical education is strongly recommended to build upon the historical context provided by this study.

Conclusion

This systematic review mapped five decades of technological integration in medical education, establishing a clear evolution from traditional pedagogy to dynamic, technology-enhanced learning. Our analysis, synthesizing findings from 18 studies, identifies simulation-based learning and blended learning as the most substantiated and impactful trends. The evidence consistently indicates that simulation robustly develops clinical and procedural skills,^18,19,30 while blended learning effectively fosters flexible, engaging, and critical learning environments.^23,26,28

These findings mandate a strategic pivot in educational policy. We recommend sustained institutional investment in simulation and blended learning design, supported by cross-institutional consortia to mitigate costs and mandatory faculty development to ensure pedagogical efficacy. Future efforts must build upon this evidence-based historical analysis, with a critical next step being a dedicated review of artificial intelligence to guide its integration as deliberately as the foundational technologies documented here.

Generative Artificial Intelligence

During manuscript preparation, we used DeepSeek (V3) solely to improve language clarity and readability. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the published article.

Abbreviations

PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; OSCE, Objective Structured Clinical Examination; 3D, Three Dimensions; 2D, Two Dimensions; ICT, Information and Communication Technology; CAI, Computer-Assisted Instruction; VLE, Virtual Learning Environments; SBME, Simulation-Based Medical Education; VR, Virtual Reality.

Data Sharing Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All relevant data are included within the manuscript and its supplementary materials.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This systematic review did not require ethical approval as it involved analyzing published studies and did not include direct interaction with human participants. Therefore, no ethical approval code was obtained. All studies included in this review were conducted following ethical standards.

As this study is a systematic review synthesizing data from previously published studies, it did not require ethical approval from an institutional review board. No direct interaction with human or animal subjects occurred as part of this research.

Consent for Publication

All authors have consented to the publication of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

There is no funding to report.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. There are no financial or personal relationships that could influence the conduct or reporting of this research.

References

1. Car J, Ong QC, Erlikh Fox T, et al. The digital health competencies in medical education framework: an international consensus statement based on a delphi study. JAMA Network Open. 2025;8(1):e2453131. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53131

2. Gazquez-Garcia J, Sánchez-Bocanegra CL, Sevillano JL. AI in the health sector: systematic review of key skills for future health professionals. JMIR Med Educ. 2025;11:e58161. doi:10.2196/58161

3. Hung CT, Wu SE, Chen YH, Soong CY, Chiang CP, Wang WM. The evaluation of synchronous and asynchronous online learning: student experience, learning outcomes, and cognitive load. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):326. doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05311-7

4. Jiang N, Zhang Y, Liang S, et al. Effectiveness of virtual simulations versus mannequins and real persons in medical and nursing education: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e56195. doi:10.2196/56195

5. Abdull Mutalib AA, Md. Akim A, Jaafar MH. A systematic review of health sciences students’ online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):524. doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03579-1

6. Abianeh NA, Yazdani S, Heydari M, Farmad SA. Global perspectives on trends in health higher education. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11(9):4991–5003. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2461_21

7. Vellido A. The importance of interpretability and visualization in machine learning for applications in medicine and health care. Neural Comput Appl. 2020;32(24):18069–18083. doi:10.1007/s00521-019-04051-w

8. Adeyele TK. Revolutionizing health education: the dynamic shift of E-learning. Innov Evol High Educ. 2024;2:287.

9. Stojan J, Haas M, Thammasitboon S, et al. Online learning developments in undergraduate medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 69. Med Teach. 2022;44(2):109–129. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2021.1992373

10. Saini RS, Bavabeedu SS, Quadri SA, et al. Impact of 3D imaging techniques and virtual patients on the accuracy of planning and surgical placement of dental implants: a systematic review. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241253550. doi:10.1177/20552076241253550

11. Baticulon RE, Sy JJ, Alberto NR, et al. Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: a national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Med Sci Educator. 2021;31:615–626. doi:10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z

12. Ma J, Wang Y, Joshi S, et al. Using immersive virtual reality technology to enhance nursing education: a comparative pilot study to understand efficacy and effectiveness. Appl Ergon. 2024;115:104159. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104159

13. Townsend I. The audiovisual revolution: do we really need it? J Adv Nurs. 1979;4(2):181–192. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1979.tb02999.x

14. Takkouche B, Norman G. PRISMA statement. Epidemiology. 2011;22(1):128. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181fe7999

15. Votaw RG, Farquhar BB. Current trends in computer-based education in medicine. Edu Technol. 1978;18(4):54–56.

16. Masys DR. Advances in information technology. Implications for medical education. West J Emergency Med. 1998;168(5):341.

17. Căruntu I. Histology teachware for the web site of the university of medicine and pharmacy” Gr. T. Popa” Iaşi. Revista Medico-chirurgicala a Societatii de Medici si Naturalisti din Iasi. 2000;104(4):167–172.

18. Farrell SE, Coates WC, Khun GJ, Fisher J, Shayne P, Lin M. Highlights in emergency medicine medical education research: 2008. Acad Emergency Med. 2009;16(12):1318–1324. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00570.x

19. Satava RM. Emerging trends that herald the future of surgical simulation. Surg Clin. 2010;90(3):623–633. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2010.02.002

20. Ratka JR. Journey to Oz: the yellow brick road to a blended learning environment. Crit Care Nurs. 2010;33(1):35–43. doi:10.1097/CNQ.0b013e3181c8e04c

21. Masic I. The history and new trends of medical informatics. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;7(3):301–302. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1298

22. Walsh K. The future of postgraduate training. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;19(1). doi:10.11604/pamj.2014.19.333.5555

23. Alkoudmani RM, Elkalmi RM. Challenges to web-based learning in pharmacy education in Arabic language speaking countries. Arch Pharm Prac. 2015;6(3):41. doi:10.4103/2045-080X.160989

24. Rigamonti L, Albrecht UV, Lutter C, Tempel M, Wolfarth B, Back DA. Potentials of digitalization in sports medicine: a narrative review. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2020;19(4):157–163. doi:10.1249/JSR.0000000000000704

25. Chimurkar VK, Sande VV, Thute P, Fulmal D. Effectiveness of traditional demonstration technique and 3-D animated video: a comparative study. J Anat Soc India. 2017;66:S73. doi:10.1016/j.jasi.2017.08.231

26. Yan Y, Chen H. Developments and emerging trends of blended learning: a document co-citation analysis (2003–2020). Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2021;16(24):149–164. doi:10.3991/ijet.v16i24.25971

27. Hampson LA. Online collaborative learning in urology. Urology. 2021;22(12):66.

28. Ghassan A, Shukr I, Sadiq N, Ahsan R. Current trends in dental education. Pakistan Armed Forces Med J. 2021;71(3):1107–1113. doi:10.51253/pafmj.v71i3.6318

29. Pinar U, Freton L, Gondran-Tellier B, et al. Educational program in onco-urology for young urologists: what are their needs? Progrès en Urologie. 2021;31(12):755–761. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2021.04.006

30. Park J-C, Kwon H-JE, Chung CW. Innovative digital tools for new trends in teaching and assessment methods in medical and dental education. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:18. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.18

31. Pien LC, Colbert CY, Hoyt A, French JC. Current trends in medical education affecting allergy and immunology physicians and learners. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022;128(3):248–255. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2021.10.012

32. Cheng F-C, Tang L-H, Lee K-J, et al. Online courses for dentist continuing education: a new trend after the COVID-19 pandemic. J Dent Sci. 2023;18(4):1812–1821. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2023.06.020

33. Ghorbani B, Jackson AC, Noorchenarboo M, et al. Comparing the effects of gamification and teach-back training methods on adherence to a therapeutic regimen in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: randomized clinical trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e22557. doi:10.2196/22557

34. Sohrabi S, Ahmady S, Khoshgoftar Z. Student support, the missing link of virtual learning in the era of COVID-19. J Med Educ. 2022;21(1). doi:10.5812/jme-127559

35. Car LT, Poon S, Kyaw BM, et al. Digital education for health professionals: an evidence map, conceptual framework, and research agenda. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(3):e31977. doi:10.2196/31977

36. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: a systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1). doi:10.7189/jogh.04.010406

37. Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM. What do we mean by web‐based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med Educ. 2010;44(8):765–774. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x

38. Jesus Â, Gomes MJ. Web 2.0 tools in biomedical and pharmaceutical education: updated review and commentary. Pharm Sci. 2017;73–98.

39. Campos N, Nogal M, Caliz C, Juan AA. Simulation-based education involving online and on-campus models in different European universities. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2020;17:1–15. doi:10.1186/s41239-020-0181-y

40. Sanchez DR, Rueda A, Kawasaki K, Van Lysebetten S, Diaz D. Reviewing simulation technology: implications for workplace training. Multimodal Technol Inter. 2023;7(5):50. doi:10.3390/mti7050050

41. Shehata MH, Abouzeid E, Wasfy NF, Abdelaziz A, Wells RL, Ahmed SA. Medical education adaptations post COVID-19: an Egyptian reflection. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520951819. doi:10.1177/2382120520951819

42. Vishwanathan K, Patel GM, Patel DJ. Impact and perception about distant online medical education (tele-education) on the educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences of medical undergraduate students from India. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10(6):2216–2224. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2306_20

43. Nepal S, Atreya A, Menezes RG, Joshi RR. Students’ perspective on online medical education amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council. 2020;18(3):551–555. doi:10.33314/jnhrc.v18i3.2851

44. Rastogi A, Bansal A, Keshan P, Jindal A, Prakash A, Kumar V. Medical education in post-pandemic times: online or offline mode of learning? J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11(9):5375–5386. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2305_21

45. Sun M, Xie L, Liu Y, et al. The metaverse in current digital medicine. Clinical eHealth. 2022;5:52–57. doi:10.1016/j.ceh.2022.07.002

46. Tinnirello A. Telemedicine: current Status and Future Perspectives. Clin Manag Issues. 2021;15(1). doi:10.7175/cmi.v15i1.1511

47. Tene T, Vique López DF, Valverde Aguirre PE, Orna Puente LM, Vacacela Gomez C. Virtual reality and augmented reality in medical education: an umbrella review. Front Digit Health. 2024;6:1365345. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1365345

48. Shahmoradi L, Abtahi H, Amini S, Gholamzadeh M. Systematic review of using medical informatics in lung transplantation studies. Int J Med Inform. 2020;136:104096. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104096

49. Alyami J. Computer-aided analysis of radiological images for cancer diagnosis: performance analysis on benchmark datasets, challenges, and directions. EJNMMI Rep. 2024;8(1):7. doi:10.1186/s41824-024-00195-8

50. Bastola P, Atreya A, Bhandari PS, Parajuli S. The evolution of anesthesiology education: embracing new technologies and teaching approaches. Health Sci Rep. 2024;7(2):e1765. doi:10.1002/hsr2.1765

51. Bykova L, Lanskaya J, Perova T, Remaeva J, Voinova A. Exploring the potential of web 2.0 technologies for teaching second/foreign language writing in higher education. Klinicheskaia laboratornaia diagnostika. 2022;67(3):177–179. doi:10.51620/0869-2084-2022-67-3-177-179

52. Sönmez EE, Çakir H. Effect of Web 2.0 technologies on academic performance: a meta-analysis study. Int J Technol Educ Sci. 2021;5(1):108–127. doi:10.46328/ijtes.161

53. Jun Xin L, Ahmad Hathim A, Jing Yi N, Reiko A, Noor Akmal Shareela I. Digital learning in medical education: comparing experiences of Malaysian and Japanese students. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):418. doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02855-w

54. Zhao X, Tang Z, Zhao W, Chen R, Liang L. A review of research, hot topics, and emerging trends in learning management systems for undergraduate education: a bibliometric analysis. In 2025 14th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT) 2025 Mar 14. IEEE; 536–543.

55. Bradley VM. Learning Management System (LMS) use with online instruction. Int J Technol Educ. 2021;4(1):68–92. doi:10.46328/ijte.36

56. Kwon S, Kim W, Bae C, Cho M, Lee S, Dreamson N. The identity changes in online learning and teaching: instructors, learners, and learning management systems. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2021;18:1–18. doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00304-8

57. Huai P, Li Y, Wang X, Zhang L, Liu N, Yang H. The effectiveness of virtual reality technology in student nurse education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Educ Today. 2024;138:106189. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106189

58. Stefan P, Pfandler M, Kullmann A, et al. Computer-assisted simulated workplace-based assessment in surgery: application of the universal framework of intraoperative performance within a mixed-reality simulation. BMJ Surg Interv Health Techno. 2023;5(1):e000135. doi:10.1136/bmjsit-2022-000135

59. Michelson JD, Manning L. Competency assessment in simulation-based procedural education. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):609–615. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.09.050

60. Sadek O, Baldwin F, Gray R, Khayyat N, Fotis T. Impact of virtual and augmented reality on quality of medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Grad Med Educ. 2023;15(3):328–338. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-22-00594.1

61. Zhang W, Cai M, Lee HJ, Evans R, Zhu C, Ming C. AI in medical education: global situation, effects and challenges. Educat Inform Technol. 2024;29(4):4611. doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12009-8