Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34893082›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Virtual inverted classroom to replace in-person radiology lectures at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic - a prospective evaluation and historic comparison.

Ulf Teichgräber, Birger Mensel, Tobias Franiel, Aimée Herzog, Chie-Hee Cho-Nöth, Hans-Joachim Mentzel, Maja Ingwersen, René Aschenbach

Open access · goldAbstract 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ulf TeichgräberOffice of the Dean, Faculty of Medical Education, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany. ulf.teichgraeber@med.uni-jena.de.
Birger MenselDepartment of Radiology, Zentralklinikum Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany.
Tobias FranielDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Aimée HerzogDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Chie-Hee Cho-NöthDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Hans-Joachim MentzelDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Maja IngwersenDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
René AschenbachDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Friedrich Schiller University Jena · DEJena University Hospital · DEZentralklinik Bad Berka · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the time of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in-person lectures had to be shifted to online learning. This study aimed to evaluate students' and lecturers' perception and effectiveness of a virtual inverted classroom (VIC) concept on clinical radiology in comparison to a historic control.

methodsIn the winter semester 2020/21, 136 fourth year medical students who completed the clinical radiology VIC during the pandemic, were included in the single centre, prospective study. Results were compared with a historic control that had finished the physical inverted classroom (PIC) in the immediately preceding year. The VIC consisted of an initial phase of self-determined preparation with learning videos and a second interactive phase of clinical case studies alternating between the virtual lecture hall and virtual buzz groups. At the end of the lecture series, students rated the lecture on a scale of 1 (most positive assessment) to 6 (most negative assessment) through an online survey platform. Additionally, they reported their impressions in free-form text. Lecturers were invited to comment on the VIC in a group interview. Main outcomes were final grades and student perception of the VIC.

resultsStudents' general impression of VIC was lower than that of PIC (median value of 3 [IQR 4, 2] and 1 [IQR 0, 0], p < 0.001), respectively, p < 0.001). The highest rating was achieved concerning use of the audience response system (median 1 [IQR 1, 0]), and the lowest concerning the buzz groups (median 4 [IQR 5, 3]). Students stated that they would have appreciated more details on reading images, greater focus on plenary case studies, and provision of exam related scripts. Lecturers would have liked better preparation by students, more activity of students, and stronger assistance for group support. Exam grades after VIC were better than after PIC (median 1 [IQR 2, 1] and 2 [IQR 2,1], respectively, p < 0.001).

conclusionsStudents' overall perception of VIC was satisfactory, although worse than PIC. Final grades improved compared to PIC. Provided an adapted buzz group size and support, VIC may serve as complement in medical education once the pandemic is over.

Indexed as

COVID-19RadiologyStudents, MedicalHumansPandemicsProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Cohort studyCOVID-19Distance education and online learningInverted classroomRadiologySurveyVirtual classroom

Identifiers

PMID34893082
PMCPMC8664666
OpenAlexW4200459202

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.