Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2004
Improvement of the educational process by computer-based visualization of procedures: randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biofeedback-Based Connected Mental Health Interventions for Anxiety: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- An Evaluation of the Design of Multimedia Patient Education Materials in Musculoskeletal Health Care: Systematic Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2024Review
- A Review of the Design of Multimedia Patient Educational Materials in Low Back Pain Research.Physical therapy research · 2024Review
- Electronic Video Consent to Power Precision Health Research: A Pilot Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Application and evaluation of interactive 3D PDF for presenting and sharing planning results for liver surgery in clinical routine.PloS one · 2014Article
- Shared decision making and patient decision aids: knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Hawai'i physicians.Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health · 2013Article
- Informed consent for digestive endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2012Article
- Evaluation of Computer-aided Strategies for Teaching Medical Students Prenatal Ultrasound Diagnostic Skills.Medical education online · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBefore any invasive procedure, physicians have a legal obligation to inform patients. Traditionally, this involves a discussion with a physician, supplemented by written leaflet information directed at the specific procedure.
objectiveComparison of the use and effectiveness of computer-based visualization opposed to standardized conversation for providing patients with information of forthcoming procedures (coronary catheters or endoscopy procedures).
methodsProspective, randomized trial with 56 participants allocated in two different groups: Visualization Group (standardized information supported by a tool for displaying two-dimensional pictures to explain medical facts as well as informative leaflet) or Control Group (standardized information and informative leaflet only). Detailed information was given about the indication, the probable complications and the details of the forthcoming procedures (coronary catheters or endoscopy procedures). All participants had to reach a Karnofsky Score of 70 points and be able to understand German or English. Main outcome measures were patient's satisfaction with physician-patient conversation, patient's acquired knowledge and duration of the intervention as described above.
resultsPatients of the Visualization Group were more satisfied with the conversation and had higher knowledge scores after the conversation. A Mann-Whitney-U-Test between the two groups showed that these differences in satisfaction (P<0.001) and knowledge (P= or <0.006) were statistically significant. Length of time needed for the conversation was slightly higher in the Visualization Group, but this difference was not statistically significant (25 versus 23 min; P= 0.441). No differences could be found due to differing age or educational level in the results of the Visualization and the Control Group.
conclusionsUsing computerized visualization increased the satisfaction and knowledge of the patients. The presentation of the visualized information in the Visualization Group did not demand significantly more time than the standard conversation in the Control Group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.