ArticleBMC medical education2017
Intraosseous access can be taught to medical students using the four-step approach.
Article in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of a modified Peyton's four-step approach in clinical skills training for residents: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Does an instructional video as a stand-alone tool promote the acquisition of practical clinical skills? A randomised simulation research trial of skills acquisition and short-term retention.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Trial
- The Role of Deconstructive Teaching in the Training of Laparoscopy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsTrial
- Evaluation of the use of intraosseous access on adult patients presenting to the emergency department in urban South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
- Teaching Clinical Skills Using Online Modality through Modified Peyton's Framework: An Experience from a Medical University in Pakistan.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe intraosseous (IO) access is an alternative route for vascular access when peripheral intravascular catheterization cannot be obtained. In Denmark the IO access is reported as infrequently trained and used. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if medical students can obtain competencies in IO access when taught by a modified Walker and Peyton's four-step approach.
methodsNineteen students attended a human cadaver course in emergency procedures. A lecture was followed by a workshop. Fifteen students were presented with a case where IO access was indicated and their performance was evaluated by an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and rated using a weighted checklist. To evaluate the validity of the checklist, three raters rated performance and Cohen's kappa was performed to assess inter-rater reliability (IRR). To examine the strength of the overall IRR, Randolph's free-marginal multi rater kappa was used.
resultsA maximum score of 15 points was obtained by nine (60%) of the participants and two participants (13%) scored 13 points with all three raters. Only one participant failed more than one item on the checklist. The expert rater rated lower with a mean score of 14.2 versus the non-expert raters with mean 14.6 and 14.3. The overall IRR calculated with Randolph's free-marginal multi rater kappa was 0.71.
conclusionThe essentials of the IO access procedure can be taught to medical students using a modified version of the Walker and Peyton's four-step approach and the checklist used was found reliable.
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.