ArticleATS scholar2021
Instructional Training Compared with Self-Study for Pulmonary Function Test Interpretation.
Article in ATS scholar, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary diseases have considerable prognostic relevance for all-cause mortality. Most patients with lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are treated by general practitioners. Understanding the clinical consequences such as pulmonary hyperinflation or reduced diffusion capacity is important for the management and prognosis of patients with chronic respiratory disorders. Therefore, the interpretation of pulmonary function testing (PFT) results needs to see more emphasis in the medical education curriculum.
objectiveTo develop PFT training for final-year medical students and to compare the efficacy of instructional training to self-reliant textbook study.
methodsA two-armed randomized control trial compares learning outcomes in PFT interpretation. A total of 25 final-year medical students were selected at random into the
resultsThe instructional training group acquired significantly more knowledge and, in particular, higher skill levels when compared with the self-reliant reading group. In the reading group, knowledge scores increased from 48 to 60% (12%) and skills scores increased from 14 to 22% (8%), whereas in the instructional group, knowledge increased from 47 to 71% (24%) and skills from 18 to 58% (40%). A multivariate analysis (Pillai's Trace: 0.633;
conclusionThe self-reliant study group was less able to translate their newly acquired knowledge into interpretation of comprehensive PFT reports. A mandatory 2-hour instructional training greatly enhances the students' knowledge and skills about PFT interpretation. Obligatory PFT instructional training should therefore be included in the students' curriculum.
Indexed as
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.