Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33272253›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

Effectiveness of blended learning versus lectures alone on ECG analysis and interpretation by medical students.

Charle André Viljoen, Rob Scott Millar, Kathryn Manning, Vanessa Celeste Burch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charle André ViljoenDivision of Cardiology, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa. charle.viljoen@uct.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7246-4136
Rob Scott MillarDivision of Cardiology, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa.
Kathryn ManningDepartment of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa.
Vanessa Celeste BurchDepartment of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925, South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost medical students lack confidence and are unable to accurately interpret ECGs. Thus, better methods of ECG instruction are being sought. Current literature indicates that the use of e-learning for ECG analysis and interpretation skills (ECG competence) is not superior to lecture-based teaching. We aimed to assess whether blended learning (lectures supplemented with the use of a web application) resulted in better acquisition and retention of ECG competence in medical students, compared to conventional teaching (lectures alone).

methodsTwo cohorts of fourth-year medical students were studied prospectively. The conventional teaching cohort (n = 67) attended 4 hours of interactive lectures, covering the basic principles of Electrocardiography, waveform abnormalities and arrhythmias. In addition to attending the same lectures, the blended learning cohort (n = 64) used a web application that facilitated deliberate practice of systematic ECG analysis and interpretation, with immediate feedback. All participants completed three tests: pre-intervention (assessing baseline ECG competence at start of clinical clerkship), immediate post-intervention (assessing acquisition of ECG competence at end of six-week clinical clerkship) and delayed post-intervention (assessing retention of ECG competence 6 months after clinical clerkship, without any further ECG training). Diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty were assessed in each test.

resultsThe pre-intervention test scores were similar for blended learning and conventional teaching cohorts (mean 31.02 ± 13.19% versus 31.23 ± 11.52% respectively, p = 0.917). While all students demonstrated meaningful improvement in ECG competence after teaching, blended learning was associated with significantly better scores, compared to conventional teaching, in immediate (75.27 ± 16.22% vs 50.27 ± 17.10%, p <  0.001; Cohen's d = 1.58), and delayed post-intervention tests (57.70 ± 18.54% vs 37.63 ± 16.35%, p <  0.001; Cohen's d = 1.25). Although diagnostic uncertainty decreased after ECG training in both cohorts, blended learning was associated with better confidence in ECG analysis and interpretation.

conclusionBlended learning achieved significantly better levels of ECG competence and confidence amongst medical students than conventional ECG teaching did. Although medical students underwent significant attrition of ECG competence without ongoing training, blended learning also resulted in better retention of ECG competence than conventional teaching. Web applications encouraging a stepwise approach to ECG analysis and enabling deliberate practice with feedback may, therefore, be a useful adjunct to lectures for teaching Electrocardiography.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementElectrocardiographyHumansLearningTeachingBlended learningElectrocardiographyMedical students

Identifiers

PMID33272253
PMCPMC7713171
OpenAlexW3103296322

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.