Background Peer evaluation can provide valuable feedback to medical students, and increase student confidence and quality of work. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the utilization, effectiveness, and quality of peer feedback during collaborative learning in medical education. Methods The PRISMA statement for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis was used to guide the process of conducting the systematic review. Evaluation of level of evidence (Colthart) and types of outcomes (Kirkpatrick) were used. Two main authors reviewed articles with a third deciding on conflicting results. Results The final review included 31 studies. Problem-based learning and team-based learning were the most common collaborative learning settings. Eleven studies reported that students received instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback. No studies provided descriptions on whether or not the quality of feedback was evaluated by faculty. Seventeen studies evaluated the effect of peer feedback on professionalism; 12 of those studies evaluated its effectiveness for assessing professionalism and eight evaluated the use of peer feedback for professional behavior development. Ten studies examined the effect of peer feedback on student learning. Six studies examined the role of peer feedback on team dynamics. Conclusions This systematic review indicates that peer feedback in a collaborative learning environment may be a reliable assessment for professionalism and may aid in the development of professional behavior. The review suggests implications for further research on the impact of peer feedback, including the effectiveness of providing instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback.

No abstract

Current guidelines recommend a complex vaccination schedule for the HSCT recipients, which may lead to difficulties with adherence. Our study shows that missed and delayed vaccinations are common in both autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients. Methods to improve adherence are needed.

No outside funding supported this research. The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Khan, Lerchenfeldt, and Karabon. Khan collected the data, and all authors participated in data analysis. The manuscript was primarily written by Lerchenfeldt, along with Khan and Karabon, and revised by Lerchenfeldt, along with Karabon and Khan.