ArticleElectronic physician2015
Selecting the patients for morning report sessions: case-based vs. conventional method.
Article in Electronic physician, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Junior Rounds: an educational initiative to improve role transitions for junior residents.BMC research notes · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most important issues in morning report sessions is the number of patients. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the number of cases reported in the morning report sessions in terms of case-based and conventional methods from the perspective of pediatric residents of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.
methodsThe present study was conducted on 24 pediatric residents of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in the academic year 2014-2015. In this survey, the residents replied to a 20-question researcher-made questionnaire that had been designed to measure the views of residents regarding the number of patients in the morning report sessions using case-based and conventional methods. The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by experts' views and its reliability by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Data were analyzed by t-test analysis.
resultsThe mean age of the residents was 30.852 ± 2.506, and 66.6% of them were female. The results showed that there was no significant relationship among the variables of academic year, gender, and residents' perspective to choosing the number of patients in the morning report sessions (P > 0.05). T-test analysis showed a significant relationship among the average scores of residents in the selection of the case-based method in comparison to the conventional method (P < 0.001).
conclusionFrom the perspective of residents, the case-based morning report was preferred compared to the conventional method. This method makes residents pay more attention to the details of patients' issues and therefore helps them to better plan how to address patient problems and improve their differential diagnosis skills.
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.