Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29928667›Full record

ArticleThe journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM

Creation and Evaluation of an Anesthesiology and Critical Care Podcast.

Jed Wolpaw, Serkan Toy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Jed Wolpaw
Serkan Toy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPodcasts have become an integral part of Free Open Access Medical education. After only 1 year since launching the Anesthesia and Critical Care Reviews and Commentary (ACCRAC) podcast, more than 7000 people were listening to unique content monthly. The study goal was to capture the listeners' views of their use of educational podcasts in general and of the ACCRAC podcast in particular.

methodsAfter institutional review board exempt status was obtained, a request was posted on the ACCRAC site inviting users to participate in an anonymous survey. The cross-sectional survey of listeners included 18 items and was open for 2 months between April and June, 2017.

resultsA total of 279 listeners of this podcast responded with a 43% response rate. Of those, 196 (71%) were between the ages of 25 and 34, and 153 (56%) indicated that podcasts were the most beneficial education modality outside formal didactics. About half, 128 (47%), reported using podcasts 1 to 2 times per week, and 88 (32%) listened at least 3 times per week. Listeners indicated that on average they had heard 18 episodes (SD = 11.7, 40 total) in this series, and over 90% reported high levels of satisfaction with the podcast.

conclusionsThe popularity of the podcast indicates a clear need for this type of educational modality in anesthesiology. The results suggest that there is a demand for podcasts among learners and that those who listen to podcasts do so frequently and value them because they support multitasking and provide flexible access to pertinent information.

Indexed as

learner centeredmedical educationpodcast

Identifiers

PMID29928667
PMCPMC5991777

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.