Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34284771›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2021

A three-arm single blind randomised control trial of naïve medical students performing a shoulder joint clinical examination.

P E Brewer, M Racy, M Hampton, F Mushtaq, J E Tomlinson, F M Ali

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Learning Design Strategies in MOOCs for Physicians' Training: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

6 authors.

P E BrewerSheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S57AU, UK. brewerpaul@doctors.net.uk.
M RacySheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S57AU, UK.
M HamptonSheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S57AU, UK.
F MushtaqUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, Ls2 9JT, UK.
J E TomlinsonSheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S57AU, UK.
F M AliUniversity of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological advances have previously been hailed as a new dawn in Higher Education, with the advent of 'massive open online courses' (MOOCs) and online learning. Virtual platforms have potential advantages such as accessibility and availability but simply transferring educational material to the online environment may not ensure high quality learning. Clinical examination is a fundamental principle of medical assessment, and this study aimed to assess the role of technology in teaching these skills. AIMS/

objectivesTo determine whether three teaching modalities were of equal efficacy in teaching examination of the shoulder joint to naïve medical students.

methodsSixty-seven pre-clinical medical students naïve to large joint examination were recruited. Participants completed a learning style questionnaire and were then block randomised to three study: textbook study, face-to-face seminar, or video tutorial via online platform. The same examination technique was taught in all groups, with the intervention being the method of delivery All second year students were eligible for inclusion. The single exclusion criteria was previous exposure to clinical examination teaching. Students were assessed using a standardised scoring system at baseline (pre-intervention), and days 5 and 19 post-intervention (maximum score 30). Assessors were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was assessment score at day 5 post intervention.

resultsThere was no difference between the three groups at baseline assessment (mean scores 2.4 for textbook, 2.8 for face-to-face, and 3.1 for video; p = 0.267). Mean post-intervention scores were 16.5 textbook, 25.5 face-to-face, and 22.4 video (p < 0.001, η

conclusionFace-to-face teaching was the most effective method for teaching clinical examination of the shoulder. Technology can potentially increase accessibility and remove geographic barriers, but is not as effective if teaching techniques are simply mirrored in an online format. Online platforms allow in depth data analysis of how learners interact with educational material and this may have value in improving the design of online educational materials, and is a potential area for further research.

Indexed as

Shoulder JointStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementHumansPhysical ExaminationSingle-Blind MethodDistance learningMedical educationPhysical examinationTeachingTechnology

Identifiers

PMID34284771
PMCPMC8293563

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.