Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30071848›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

Measuring dexterity in the podiatrist population: a cross-sectional comparison of novice students and experienced podiatrists.

Ryan Causby, Michelle McDonnell, Lloyd Reed, Susan Hillier

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan CausbySansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, North Terrace, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. Ryan.Causby@unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9236-9379
Michelle McDonnellAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Lloyd ReedSchool of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Qld, Australia.
Susan HillierSansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, North Terrace, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
University of South Australia · AUQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no 'gold-standard' for the evaluation of dexterity for the health professional or podiatrist populations. This has resulted in a broad array of generalised tests to evaluate dexterity. Thus, the aim was to determine which objective generalised dexterity tests are best suited to evaluating dexterity in a podiatry student population.

methodsA cohort of Novice podiatry students and Experienced podiatrists were recruited and evaluated on a battery of dexterity tests selected to evaluate a variety of different elements. Group differences were evaluated statistically and regression undertaken on significant test outcomes.

resultsA total of 108 participants were recruited with 54 participants in each of the Novice and Experienced groups. Five of the eight tests were able to discriminate dexterous ability of participants in the Novice and Experienced groups. These included the Grip-lift task, GPT, P-MVC, G-MVC and the AsTex® sensory discrimination test. These tests comprised a total of 11 significant dependent variables (p <  0.05). From the test battery, outcomes were able to predict 79% of the group membership. Age and experience did not explain within-group variability for the Experienced group.

conclusionWhilst the Experienced group displayed superior performance in strength and speed, the Novice group showed superior coordination and sensory ability. From these findings, we would recommend that outcomes from the Grooved Pegboard Test, Grip-lift task, Grip Strength test and Pinch Grip strength test be used to evaluate elements of dexterity in this population.

Indexed as

Hand StrengthPodiatryStudents, Health OccupationsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansMaleMotor SkillsPsychomotor PerformanceSensationTremorYoung AdultDexterityDexterity testingPodiatryPsychomotor testing

Identifiers

PMID30071848
PMCPMC6090916
OpenAlexW2885928591

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.