ArticleHNO2020
[Use and acceptance of the ORL logbook for final year students in German university and academic teaching hospitals].
Article in HNO, 2020. 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.
- Final-year logbooks in otorhinolaryngology in Germany - insights from a needs analysis and user experience study of final-year students and supervisors.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Logbooks alone are not enough: initial experience with implementing a logbook for medical students in a clinical internship in gynecology and obstetrics.European journal of medical research · 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
backgroundThe current German medical licensing system from 2013 dictates the mandatory keeping of logbooks for final year students. A field-specific logbook for the practical year was created by the national otorhinolaryngology (ORL) society in 2012, which has been in use since then in all academic teaching and university hospitals nationwide.
objectiveAfter this time interval it seemed appropriate to evaluate this logbook for its usefulness by associate lecturers and students. The objectives were whether the actual learning targets could be considered relevant, suitable and feasible concerning department location, practical and clinical education for medical students. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 165 associate lecturers of all registered national ORL departments were asked to participate using a 2-step evaluation. The logbook was evaluated by 77 lecturers in general and 17 lecturers also evaluated each of the 78 learning targets. Out of the 24 final year students from the Universities of Freiburg and Dresden who were contacted, 16 evaluated the logbook.
resultsAnalysis demonstrated that the ORL logbook was used in 55% without alterations to the content and in 36% a medical faculty-specific logbook was used. The lecturers' judgement revealed no significant differences between the two logbooks. They approved the 78 learning targets with a majority vote of between 60-100%. Only 3 learning targets (otoacoustic emission, rhinomanometry and sonography) showed approval of less than 60%, associated with a request for modifications. Students evaluated the ORL logbook as being significantly better than the faculty's version concerning practical education.
conclusionThe results demonstrated the nationwide acceptance of the ORL logbook by lecturers and students. The amount of critical learning targets which will have to be changed is moderate. This evaluation confirmed the relevance and balance of the ORL logbook content in the practical year training and the possibility of use independent of the location of ORL departments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31538214What 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.