ArticleDer Nervenarzt2016
[Neurological podcasting : A project by students for students].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPodcasts are a very popular learning material among medical students. Currently only a few neurological podcasts exist, which do not include relevant neurological diseases or neuroanatomical contents.
objectiveThe primary objective of this project was to help medical students understand neurological topics and to integrate them into the educational program. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe project started in 2014. The podcasts were written and produced by medical students. So far ten podcasts about neuroanatomy and clinical neurology have been created. The podcasts were published in summer 2015 at the University of Witten-Herdecke followed by an internal evaluation. In addition to questions about the listening experience and intelligibility, the students were asked to give an individual evaluation of the different topics and to express their opinion in a free text field.
resultsA total of 100 medical students participated. They listened to the podcasts in particular to prepare themselves for medical examinations (47.4 %) and because of a special interest in neurology (26.3 %). The different podcasts were mainly evaluated as "good" or "very good". Of the students 76.8 % wanted to listen to the podcasts again and 93 % planned to recommend the podcasts to friends. Only the length of some of the podcasts as well as technical faults were criticized and should be improved.
conclusionThe neurological podcasts of the University of Witten-Herdecke are a very successful and well-received project. The results of the survey will help to improve the next podcasts and integrate new topics. More than 15 new podcasts are being edited at the moment. The release date for the new podcasts will be in spring 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27271514What 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.