ArticleEcho research and practice2020
Tool to improve qualitative assessment of left ventricular systolic function.
Article in Echo research and practice, 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.
- Preparticipation screening in young female elite ice hockey players.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Quantitative Echocardiography Improves Resident Assessment of Left Ventricular Systolic Function.The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPMArticle
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
Abstract
Interactive online learning tools have revolutionized graduate medical education and can impart echocardiographic image interpretive skills. We created self-paced, interactive online training modules using a repository of echocardiography videos of normal and various degrees of abnormal left ventricles. In this study, we tested the feasibility of this learning tool. Thirteen anesthesia interns took a pre-test and then had 3 weeks to complete the training modules on their own time before taking a post-test. The average score on the post-test (74.6% ± 11.08%) was higher than the average score on the pre-test (57.7% ± 9.27%) (
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.