Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31918692›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

A non-randomised trial of video and written educational adjuncts in undergraduate ophthalmology.

H D Jeffry Hogg, Michael Pereira, Julian Purdy, Richard J R Frearson, Gordon B Lau

Abstract readComparative StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. 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. Observational
  2. [Online examination course instead of classroom teaching: adaptation of medical student teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  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

5 authors.

H D Jeffry HoggThe University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK. Jeffry.hogg@ncl.ac.uk.
Michael PereiraThe University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK.
Julian PurdyThe University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK.
Richard J R FrearsonThe University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK.
Gordon B LauThe Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProvision of relevant pre-learning materials has been shown to increase student engagement and improve outcomes in medical education. This non-randomised study attempts to quantify the educational gains, and relative efficacy of video and written pre-learning materials, in ophthalmology undergraduate teaching.

methodsNinety-eight final year medical students were contacted prior to their three-day ophthalmology placements at a British tertiary ophthalmology unit. All participants were sent welcome packs prior to arrival requesting they undertake 90 min of work focusing on a list of specified ophthalmic conditions. One cohort (N = 33) were sent written materials, another (N = 32) was provided with video materials and a third cohort (N = 33) were not sent any materials. On arrival participants completed a simple knowledge test, a questionnaire estimating the time they spent preparing for the placement and a self-reported knowledge score. The teaching on placement was the same for all cohorts. At the conclusion of each placement participants completed a challenging knowledge test, a clinical skills test and repeated self-reported knowledge scores.

resultsEighty seven percent of students receiving specified materials claimed to complete pre-placement work compared to 70% of those receiving learning outcomes alone (p = 0.05). Students receiving learning materials scored higher in the post-placement tests of knowledge (p < 0.001), 74.8% (72.4-77.2%) vs 63.6% (95%CI 59.3-67.9%) and skills (p = 0.04), 86.9% (83.9-89.9%) vs 81.3% (77.2-85.4%). Students using video resources outperformed students using written materials in their visual acuity assessment test (p = 0.03), 90.4% (86.6-94.2%) vs 83.6% (80.1-87.1%) whilst those receiving written rather than video material performed better in the end of placement knowledge test (p = 0.03), 77.7% (74.3-81.1%) vs 72.0% (68.9-75.1%).

conclusionThis study showed that providing pre-placement learning materials improves undergraduates' commitment and achievement. Written materials better facilitate knowledge acquisition while video materials preferentially promote skill acquisition. This is a novel demonstration within ophthalmology and can help address the imbalance between the expectations placed on undergraduates and the resources committed to ensuring they are met.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateTeaching MaterialsVideo RecordingHumansOphthalmologyUnited KingdomLearning resourcesOphthalmologyTechnology enhanced learningUndergraduate educationVideo resources

Identifiers

PMID31918692
PMCPMC6953281

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.