Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27936189›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Impact of Attending Physicians' Comments on Residents' Workloads in the Emergency Department: Results from Two J(^o^)PAN Randomized Controlled Trials.

Akira Kuriyama, Noriyuki Umakoshi, Jun Fujinaga, Toshie Kaihara, Seigo Urushidani, Naoki Kuninaga, Motohiro Ichikawa, Shinichiro Ienaga, Akira Sasaki, Tetsunori Ikegami

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. "Shh-don't say the Q-word" or do you?The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery · 2021
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. The Influence of Food Superstition (Kentucky Fried Chicken, KFC) on the On-Duty Surgeon's Workload: A Multiple-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A quiet place: The impact of the word "quiet" on clinical workload.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

10 authors.

Akira KuriyamaDepartment of General Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Noriyuki UmakoshiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Jun FujinagaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Toshie KaiharaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Seigo UrushidaniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Naoki KuninagaDepartment of General Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Motohiro IchikawaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Shinichiro IenagaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Akira SasakiDepartment of General Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Tetsunori IkegamiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine whether peppy comments from attending physicians increased the workload of residents working in the emergency department (ED).

methodsWe conducted two parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomized trials at the ED in a tertiary care hospital in western Japan. Twenty-five residents who examined either ambulatory (J(^o^)PAN-1 Trial) or transferred patients (J(^o^)PAN-2 Trial) in the ED on weekdays. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that either received a peppy message such as "Hope you have a quiet day!" (intervention group) or did not (control group) from the attending physicians. Both trials were conducted from June 2014 through March 2015. For each trial, residents rated the number of patients examined during and the busyness and difficulty of their shifts on a 5-point Likert scale.

resultsA total of 169 randomizations (intervention group, 81; control group, 88) were performed for the J(^o^)PAN-1 Trial, and 178 (intervention group, 85; control group, 93) for the J(^o^)PAN-2 Trial. In the J(^o^)PAN-1 trial, no differences were observed in the number of ambulatory patients examined during their shifts (5.5 and 5.7, respectively, p = 0.48), the busyness of their shifts (2.8 vs 2.8; p = 0.58), or the difficulty of their shifts (3.1 vs 3.1, p = 0.94). However, in the J(^o^)PAN-2 trial, although busyness (2.8 vs 2.7; p = 0.40) and difficulty (3.1 vs 3.2; p = 0.75) were similar between groups, the intervention group examined more transferred patients than the control group (4.4 vs 3.9; p = 0.01).

conclusionsPeppy comments from attending physicians had a minimal jinxing effect on the workload of residents working in the ED.

trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), UMIN000017193 and UMIN000017194.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalTertiary Care CentersHumansInternship and ResidencyJapanPatient CarePatient TransferSingle-Blind MethodSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkload

Identifiers

PMID27936189
PMCPMC5147894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.