BackgroundBlended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face-to-face learning and asynchronous or synchronous e-learning, has grown rapidly and is now widely used in education. Concerns about the effectiveness of blended learning have led to an increasing number of studies on this topic. However, there has yet to be a quantitative synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning on knowledge acquisition in health professions.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of blended learning for health professional learners compared with no intervention and with nonblended learning. We also aimed to explore factors that could explain differences in learning effects across study designs, participants, country socioeconomic status, intervention durations, randomization, and quality score for each of these questions.MethodsWe conducted a search of citations in Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ERIC through September 2014. Studies in any language that compared blended learning with no intervention or nonblended learning among health professional learners and assessed knowledge acquisition were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners and intervention (study design, exercises, interactivity, peer discussion, and outcome assessment).ResultsWe identified 56 eligible articles. Heterogeneity across studies was large (I2 ≥93.3) in all analyses. For studies comparing knowledge gained from blended learning versus no intervention, the pooled effect size was 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.77; P<.001; n=20 interventions) with no significant publication bias, and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. For studies comparing blended learning with nonblended learning (pure e-learning or pure traditional face-to-face learning), the pooled effect size was 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.05; P<.001; n=56 interventions), and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. Although significant publication bias was found, the trim and fill method showed that the effect size changed to 0.26 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.54) after adjustment. In the subgroup analyses, pre-posttest study design, presence of exercises, and objective outcome assessment yielded larger effect sizes.ConclusionsBlended learning appears to have a consistent positive effect in comparison with no intervention, and to be more effective than or at least as effective as nonblended instruction for knowledge acquisition in health professions. Due to the large heterogeneity, the conclusion should be treated with caution.

COVID-19 has become a major global public health burden, currently causing a rapidly growing number of infections and significant morbidity and mortality around the world. Early detection with fast and sensitive assays and timely intervention are crucial for interrupting the spread of the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2). Using a mismatch-tolerant amplification technique, we developed a simple, rapid, sensitive and visual reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection based on its N gene. The assay has a high specificity and sensitivity, and robust reproducibility, and its results can be monitored using a real-time PCR machine or visualized via colorimetric change from red to yellow. The limit of detection (LOD) of the assay is 118.6 copies of SARS-CoV-2 RNA per 25 µL reaction. The reaction can be completed within 30 min for real-time fluorescence monitoring, or 40 min for visual detection when the template input is more than 200 copies per 25 µL reaction. To evaluate the viability of the assay, a comparison between the RT-LAMP and a commercial RT-qPCR assay was made using 56 clinical samples. The SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP assay showed perfect agreement in detection with the RT-qPCR assay. The newly-developed SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP assay is a simple and rapid method for COVID-19 surveillance.

No abstract