Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900461›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

A Face-to-Face Surgical Instrumentation Course During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Samuel E Cullen, Angela Tiu, Kalpesh R Vaghela, Alistair R Hunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Samuel E CullenTrauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospital, London, GBR.
Angela TiuTrauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospital, London, GBR.
Kalpesh R VaghelaTrauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, London, GBR.
Alistair R HunterTrauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospital, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives Surgical instrumentation teaching is included as an essential part of surgical training in the core surgical training syllabus. Access to formal teaching is variable, and opportunities for informal teaching have been further reduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to design a course to fulfil these local trainees' needs. A move away from face-to-face teaching has occurred successfully during the pandemic, but little literature exists on how face-to-face courses can be best designed during this time. We aimed to describe the practicalities of running a face-to-face course with COVID restrictions. Methods Junior doctors and nurses rotated around five stations led by theatre nurses and senior doctors, each with common instruments from different surgical subspecialties. Social distancing was observed, and level 2 personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn throughout the course. Matched pre- and post-course tests allowed evaluation of learning. Results The course had 20 attendees, and the test scores improved following the course by an average of 9% (p = 0.009). All attendees (100%) found the course improved their knowledge and confidence. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, and the significant improvement in the multiple-choice question (MCQ) scores demonstrates that this was an effective method of delivering teaching despite the COVID-19 restrictions on social distancing. Conclusion This course shows that instrumentation training is valuable to trainees and provides a good example to other educators, showing the workings of how a practical course may be run face-to-face during the pandemic.

Indexed as

core surgical trainingcovid-19covid-19 medical educationsurgical educationsurgical instrumentation

Identifiers

PMID34900461
PMCPMC8648168

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.