Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27730252›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2017

The effect of video-assisted oral feedback versus oral feedback on surgical communicative competences in undergraduate training.

M Ruesseler, J Sterz, B Bender, S Hoefer, F Walcher

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M RuesselerDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. miriam.ruesseler@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-4451
J SterzCentre of Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
B BenderDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
S HoeferDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
F WalcherDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Medical Faculty University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFeedback can significantly improve future performance. Reviewing one's performance by video is discussed as useful adjunct to debriefing, particularly for non-technical skills. Communicative competencies are an essential part of daily clinical practice; thus should be taught and assessed during undergraduate training. The aim of this study was to compare the educational value of video-assisted feedback versus oral feedback in communicative competencies in the surgical context.

methodsFourth-year medical students completed a 210-min training unit of 'taking patient's history and obtaining informed consents prior to surgery' using role plays. Oral feedback was received directly thereafter using agenda-led, outcome-based guidelines (ALOBA). In the study group, the role plays were video-taped and reviewed thereafter. Afterwards, students completed two OSCE stations, where they were assessed regarding their communicative competencies and the content of the clinical scenario.

resultsOne-hundred students (49 receiving video-assisted feedback, 51 oral) participated in the study. Those receiving video-assisted feedback performed significantly better in overall score in both OSCE stations (p < 0.001), in all five assessed communicative competencies at taking patient history (p = 0.029 or better), and in 2 of 5 items at obtaining informed consent (p = 0.008, <0.001). The educational effect size for both tasks was large.

conclusionUsing our methodology, video-assisted feedback offered a significant educational benefit over oral feedback alone during a simulated patient encounter in a surgical context.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceFeedbackMedical History TakingEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleMultiple TraumaProspective StudiesVideotape RecordingYoung AdultCommunicative competencesOral feedbackSurgical trainingUndergraduate trainingVideo assisted feedback

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.