Trial reportBMC medical education2020
Efficacy of smartphone-based Mobile learning versus lecture-based learning for instruction of Cephalometric landmark identification.
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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Education Technology in Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of Flipped Classroom and Game Teaching in Experimental Teaching of Histology and Embryology.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- OphthalMobilE: A new frontier in mobile learning for ophthalmology education.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Development, Usability, and Effect of a Hypertension Mobile Application on Knowledge and Guidelines Adherence among Family and Community Medicine Residents: A Before-and-After Educational Intervention Study.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of the Acceptable Range of Lips and Chin Position in Two Different Geographical Zones of Iran among Laypersons.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2024Article
- The development of a serious game for laser applications in dentistry and the evaluation of dental students' satisfaction.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses on a tablet or desktop computer : A prospective study.Head & face medicine · 2024Article
- Smartphone Applications in Dentistry: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the increasing popularity of electronic learning, particularly smartphone-based mobile learning, and its reportedly optimal efficacy for instruction of complicated topics, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of smartphone-based mobile learning versus lecture-based learning for instruction of cephalometric landmark identification.
methodsThis quasi-experimental interventional study evaluated 53 dental students (4th year) in two groups of intervention (n = 27; smartphone instruction using an application) and control (n = 26, traditional lecture-based instruction). Two weeks after the instructions, dental students were asked to identify four landmarks namely the posterior nasal spine (PNS), orbitale (Or), articulare (Ar) and gonion (Go) on lateral cephalograms. The mean coordinates of each landmark identified by orthodontists served as the reference point, and the mean distance from each identified point to the reference point was reported as the mean consistency while the standard deviation of this mean was reported as the precision of measurement. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 18 via independent sample t-test.
resultsNo significant difference was noted between the two groups in identification of PNS, Ar or Go (P > 0.05). However, the mean error rate in identification of Or was significantly lower in smartphone group compared with the traditional learning group (P = 0.020).
conclusionsSmartphone-based mobile learning had a comparable, and even slightly superior, efficacy to lecture-based learning for instruction of cephalometric landmark identification, and may be considered, at least as an adjunct, to enhance the instruction of complicated topics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This is not a human subject research. https://ethics. RESEARCH: ac.ir/ProposalCertificateEn.php?id=33714&Print=true&NoPrintHeader=true&NoPrintFooter=true&NoPrintPageBorder=true&LetterPrint=true .
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.