Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34294079›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

The efficacy of virtual distance training of intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

Enikő Kovács, András Kállai, Gábor Fritúz, Zsolt Iványi, Vivien Mikó, Luca Valkó, Balázs Hauser, János Gál

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

8 authors.

Enikő KovácsDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary. kovacs.eniko2@med.semmelweis-univ.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2012-1136
András KállaiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.
Gábor FritúzDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsolt IványiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.
Vivien MikóDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.
Luca ValkóDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.
Balázs HauserDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.
János GálDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, P.O.B. 2, H-1428, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) brought several challenges in medical education. The aim of our study was to investigate whether virtual distance trainings (VDT) organized during the COVID-19 pandemic at our university were effective in replacing in-person bed-side education in intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students, both from students' and instructors' perspectives.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional study consisting of three parts: a 20-item students' questionnaire filled out by students participating in VDT, a 22-item instructors' questionnaire filled out by instructors taking part in virtual distance education and a 20-item knowledge test completed by students participating in VDT, as well as by students visiting bed-side trainings (BT) during the same semester, before COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaires focused on effectiveness, content, self-preparedness, technical background and interactivity of VDT. Instructors' and students' responses given to the common questions, as well as the knowledge test results were compared. Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons and binary logistic regression was performed to analyze the influence of previous health-care experience on students' feeling of self-preparedness.

resultsOne hundred thirthen students (response rate {RR}: 68%) and 29 instructors (RR: 97%) filled out the questionnaires. The majority of students found our VDT useful and effective; however, a considerable number of participants felt disadvantaged by taking VDT instead of BT sessions and would recommend keeping virtual distance education methods combined with BT. Instructors found VDT overall effective and deemed the transfer of their knowledge satisfactory; however, they described worse interactivity and contact with students during virtual sessions compared to in-person teaching. Instructors showed a clearer consensus that VDT should not replace BT in the future, while students' answers were more divided in this regard. Previous health-care experience did not influence students' feeling of self-preparedness. One hundred and twenty-seven students (56 after VDT {RR: 34%}; 71 after BT {RR: 67%}) completed the end-of-semester knowledge test. Students attending VDT performed better than students visiting BT (median score VDT:83.5 vs BT:77.3; p = 0.015).

conclusionsVirtual distance learning incorporating virtual practice sessions was effective in maintaining continuous education of intensive therapy and anaesthesiology among fifth-year medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyCOVID-19Education, DistanceStudents, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AnaesthesiologyCOVID-19Intensive therapyMedical educationVirtual learning

Identifiers

PMID34294079
PMCPMC8295977

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.