ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021
The University of Pennsylvania Flap Course Enters Virtual Reality: The Global Impact.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Remote online global health education among U.S. medical students during COVID-19 and beyond.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Erratum to Two Articles by Klifto et al., March 2021.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
- A Descriptive National Survey of Post-COVID Experiences of Nigerian Surgical Trainees.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate participants from the in-person Penn Flap Course (PFC) and virtual PFC to determine if the virtual PFC increased diversity in culture, sex, education, and surgical specialties internationally and within the United States. Our hypothesis is that the virtual PFC increases diversity internationally and within the United States.
methodsA retrospective descriptive comparison was performed between participants from the in-person PFC from the years 2017 to 2019 and virtual PFC in 2020. Frequency maps were generated to determine differences in participation of cultures, sexes, education, and specialties internationally and within the United States. Net Promoter Scores (NPSs) were used to assess participant satisfaction with the virtual course.
resultsThe in-person PFC included 124 participants from the years 2017 to 2019, whereas the virtual PFC included 770 participants in the year 2020. Compared to the in-person course, the virtual course included more cultures (countries: 60 versus 11; states: 35 versus 22), women (countries: 38 versus 7; states: 23 versus 9), students/researchers (countries: 24 versus 0; states: 9 versus 0), residents (countries: 44 versus 5; states: 26 versus 15), fellows (countries: 21 versus 2; states: 21 versus 9), attendings (countries: 34 versus 8; states: 16 versus 11), plastic surgery (countries: 54 versus 9; states: 31 versus 18), orthopedic surgery (countries: 12 versus 5; states: 11 versus 9), and other specialties (countries: 19 versus 1; states: 8 versus 2). Our overall NPS for the virtual PFC totaled 75%, categorized as "world class" based on global NPS.
conclusionA virtual interface for a flap course increased participation and diversity of culture, sex, education, and specialties internationally and within the United States with "world class" participant satisfaction.
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.