ArticleBMC medical education2019
"Princess and the pea" - an assessment tool for palpation skills in postgraduate education.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of exploration time, accuracy, and task difficulty perception in three tactile tests among physiotherapy students.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn osteopathic medicine, palpation is considered to be the key skill to be acquired during training. Whether palpation skills are adequately acquired during undergraduate or postgraduate training is difficult to assess. The aim of our study was to test a palpation assessment tool developed for undergraduate medical education in a postgraduate medical education (PME) setting.
methodsWe modified and standardized an assessment tool, where a coin has to be palpated under different layers of copy paper. For every layer depth we randomized the hiding positions with a random generator. The task was to palpate the coin or to determine that no coin was hidden in the stack. We recruited three groups of participants: 22 physicians with no training in osteopathic medicine, 25 participants in a PME course of osteopathic techniques before and after a palpation training program, 31 physicians from an osteopathic expert group with at least 700 h of osteopathic skills training. These experts ran the test twice to check for test-retest-reliability. Inferential statistical analyzes were performed using generalized linear mixed models with the dichotomous variable "coin detected / not detected" as the dependent variable.
resultsWe measured a test-retest reliability of the assessment tool as a whole with 56 stations in the expert group of 0.67 (p < 0.001). For different paper layers, we found good retest reliabilities up to 300 sheets. The control group detected a coin significantly better in a depth of 150 sheets (p = 0.01) than the pre-training group. The osteopathic training group showed significantly more correct coin localizations after the training in layer depths of 200 (p = 0.03) and 300 sheets (p = 0.05). This group also had significantly better palpation results than the expert group in the depth of 300 sheets (p = 0.001). When there was no coin hidden, the expert group showed significantly better results than the post-training group (p = 0.01).
conclusionsOur tool can be used with reliable results to test palpation course achievements with 200 and 300 sheets of paper. Further refinements of this tool will be needed to use it in complex assessment designs for the evaluation of more sophisticated palpatory skills in postgraduate medical settings.
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.