Trial reportSaudi medical journal2022
Peer-assisted versus expert-assisted learning in virtual chest x-ray interpretation: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Saudi medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- From image to clinical judgment: a randomized near-peer teaching trial on systematic chest radiograph interpretation.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Empowering the future: improving community wellbeing and health literacy through outreach and service-learning.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of peer-assisted learning (PAL) and expert-assisted learning (EAL) in terms of knowledge gain in virtual chest x-ray (CXR) interpretations. The secondary objective was to assess students' satisfaction levels between both groups.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, second-year medical students who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to the PAL and EAL groups. The study was carried out from December 2020 to February 2021 at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The primary endpoint was the difference in the students' scores, which were determined by an independent reviewer. The secondary endpoint was students' satisfaction levels.
resultsA total of 166 second year medical students were included. The standard deviation and mean age of the population were 19.73±0.66 (males: 79 [47.6%]; females: 87 [52.4%]). Participants were allocated equally into two groups (83 in each group). Student scores did not differ significantly between the two groups (
conclusionPeer-assisted learning has equivalent efficacy compared to EAL in a virtual setting. The Students in the PAL group had higher level of satisfaction.
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.