Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28717985›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2018

Basic echocardiography for undergraduate students: a comparison of different peer-teaching approaches.

G Gradl-Dietsch, A K Menon, A Gürsel, A Götzenich, N Hatam, A Aljalloud, S Schrading, F Hölzl, M Knobe

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Team-based learning for teaching musculoskeletal ultrasound skills: a prospective randomised trial.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2021
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

G Gradl-DietschDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
A K MenonDepartment Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
A GürselDepartment Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
A GötzenichDepartment Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
N HatamDepartment Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
A AljalloudDepartment Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
S SchradingDepartment of Radiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
F HölzlDepartment of Interdisciplinary Emergency Medical Care, Medical Center Marienhöhe, 25 Mauerfeldchen, 52146, Würselen, Germany.
M KnobeDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, 30 Pauwelsstreet, 52074, Aachen, Germany. mknobe@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9166-0965

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of different teaching interventions in a peer-teaching environment on basic echocardiography skills and to examine the influence of gender on learning outcomes.

methodsWe randomly assigned 79 s year medical students (55 women, 24 men) to one of four groups: peer teaching (PT), peer teaching using Peyton's four-step approach (PPT), team based learning (TBL) and video-based learning (VBL). All groups received theoretical and practical hands-on training according to the different approaches. Using a pre-post-design we assessed differences in theoretical knowledge [multiple choice (MC) exam], practical skills (Objective Structured Practical Examination, OSPE) and evaluation results with respect to gender.

resultsThere was a significant gain in theoretical knowledge for all students. There were no relevant differences between the four groups regarding the MC exam and OSPE results. The majority of students achieved good or very good results. Acceptance of the peer-teaching concept was moderate and all students preferred medical experts to peer tutors even though the overall rating of the instructors was fairly good. Students in the Video group would have preferred a different training method. There was no significant effect of gender on evaluation results.

conclusionsUsing different peer-teaching concepts proved to be effective in teaching basic echocardiography. Gender does not seem to have an impact on effectiveness of the instructional approach. Qualitative analysis revealed limited acceptance of peer teaching and especially of video-based instruction.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEchocardiographyStudents, MedicalCommunicationEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMalePeer GroupTeachingYoung AdultEchocardiographyGender differencesPeer teachingPractical skillsVideo-based instruction

Identifiers

PMID28717985

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.