Trial reportBMC medical education2019
A survey comparison of educational interventions for teaching pneumatic otoscopy to medical students.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How to design effective educational videos for teaching evidence-based medicine to undergraduate learners - systematic review with complementing qualitative research to develop a practicable guide.Medical education online · 2024Pooled it
- Perinatal risk factors and preliminary prediction of conductive hearing loss in infancy.Journal of otology · 2025Article
- Utilization of Video Otoscopes for Otoscopy Skills Training of Third Year Medical Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
- Teaching pediatric otoscopy skills to the medical student in the clinical setting: preceptor perspectives and practice.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThough pneumatic otoscopy improves accurate diagnosis of ear disease, trainees lack proficiency. We evaluated the effect of three different training techniques on medical students' subsequent reported use of basic and pneumatic otoscopy in patient encounters.
methodsPediatric clerkship students participated in an ear exam workshop with randomization to one of three educational interventions: task trainer (Life/form®, Fort Atkinson WI), instructional video, or peer practice. Each student received an insufflator bulb and logbook to record otoscopic exams and completed an 18-item anonymous survey at clerkship conclusion.
results115 of 150 students (77%) completed the survey. There was no significant difference in number of basic or pneumatic otoscopic exams performed based on method of training. Most students (68-72%) felt more likely to perform pneumatic otoscopy after training. Though the majority of students performed basic otoscopy on patients when an ear exam was indicated, they used pneumatic otoscopy less than 10% of the time. Students reported significant barriers to otoscopy: time, access to equipment, cerumen impaction, patient hold, and anxiety. Student comments described a culture where insufflation was neither practiced nor valued by supervising physicians.
conclusionTraining in pneumatic otoscopy can increase student comfort, but barriers exist to using the skill in clinical practice.
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.