Effectiveness of virtual clinical learning in nursing education: a systematic review

BMC Nursing

Table 2 Quality ratings: risk of Bias within studies quality appraisal using PEDro scale

	Author	Year	Eligibility	Randomized allocation	Concealed allocation	Similarity at baseline	blinding of participant	Blinding of therapist	Blinding of assessor	Dropout	Intention to treat	Group comparison	PMVD	Total Score (10)	Internal validity (8)	Sub scale (2)	Interpretation
1	Kim [42]	2012	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5	3	2	Moderate
2	Lee [43]	2016	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4	2	2	Poor
3	Choi [44]	2018	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4	2	2	Moderate
4	Kang & Yu [45]	2018	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	3	1	2	Poor
5	Bate [46]	2019	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	3	1	2	Poor
6	Kim [47]	2019	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	3	1	2	Poor
7	Oh [48]	2021	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	4	2	2	Moderate
8	Seo & Eom [49]	2021	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	4	2	2	Moderate
9	Chang [31]	2022	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4	2	2	Moderate
10	Cengiz [50]	2023	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5	3	2	Moderate
11	Chang [51]	2024	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5	3	2	Moderate
12	Lin [30]	2024	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	4	2	2	Moderate

^{PMVD = Point measures and variability data. Note: Each item was scored either Yes = 1 or No = 0. Items 2–11 are summed for a PEDro total score. The sum of items 2–9 yields the internal validity subscale score, while the sum of items 10 and 11 yields the statistical reporting subscale score. The PEDro total score was rated 0–3 = poor, 4–5 Moderate, 6–8 good, and 9–10= excellent}

ISSN: 1472-6955