Trial reportJornal de pediatria
Teaching point-of-care transfontanellar ultrasound for pediatricians and medical students.
Trial report in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing medical students to radiological anatomy: The importance of experiential learning during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns.Anatomical sciences education · 2022Article
- Editorial: Experiences and advances in endocrinology point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS).Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Can Medical Students Learn and Perform POCUS in the Pediatric Emergency Department? Implementation of a Short Curriculum.POCUS journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe authors aim to evaluate the "point-of-care" transfontanellar ultrasound (TU) as an extension to pediatric physical examination and suggest a TU teaching protocol.
methodsThe students were randomly divided into two groups, group A (12 participants) and group B (15 participants). The first group only received theoretical training, while the second group received theoretical and practical training. A third group, group C, included 15 pediatricians and interns who also received theoretical and practical training. All the participants underwent multiple-choice testing before and after a four-hour short course on TU. Six months later, another evaluation was performed to analyze the retained knowledge. Furthermore, a questionnaire based on the Likert scale was administered to evaluate satisfaction.
resultsThe cognitive evaluation (maximum score=10 points) before and after training increased in group A from 4,0±1,04 to 7,5±1,2 (p<0.001) and, 6 months later, to 6,5±1,16 (p<0.003); in group B from 3,8±1,24 to 8,8±1,01 (p<0.001) and, 6 months later, to 8,46±0,91 (p<0.001); and in group C from 6,0±0,75 to 9,0±0,75 (p<0.001) and, 6 months later, to 8,8±0,77 (p<0.001). The average satisfaction estimated by the Likert scale was over 80% for all questions.
conclusionCognitive assessment before and after classes and training reveals progress in learning, with knowledge retention in 6 months. Theoretical-practical courses are well accepted.
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.