Trial reportBMC medical education2022
Comparison of two teaching methods for stopping the bleed: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial comparison of PTEBL and traditional teaching methods in "Stop the Bleed" training.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Harnessing Fear and Promoting Self-Efficacy in Response to Mass Casualty Scenarios: Evaluating Stop the Bleed at an Urban University.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe "Stop the Bleed" (STB) campaign has achieved remarkable results since it was launched in 2016, but there is no report on the teaching of an STB course combined with a trauma patient simulator. This study proposes the "problem-, team-, and evidence-based learning" (PTEBL) teaching method combined with Caesar (a trauma patient simulator) based on the STB course and compares its effect to that of the traditional teaching method among outstanding doctoral candidates training in haemostasis skills.
methodSeventy-eight outstanding doctoral candidate program students in five and eight-year programs were selected as the research subjects and were randomly divided into a control group (traditional teaching method, n = 34) and an experimental group (PTEBL teaching method combined with Caesar, n = 44). Their confidence in their haemostasis skills and willingness to rescue injured victims were investigated before and after the course in both groups.
resultStudents' self-confidence in their STB skills and the willingness to rescue improved after the class in both groups. Compared with the control group, students in the experimental group were more confident in compressing with bandages and compressing with a tourniquet after a class (compressing with bandages: control group 3.9 ± 0.8 vs. experimental group 4.3 ± 0.7, P = 0.014; compressing with a tourniquet: control group 3.9 ± 0.4 vs. experimental group 4.5 ± 0.8, P = 0.001) More students in the experimental group than the control group thought that the use of Caesar for scenario simulation could improve learning (control group 55.9% vs. experimental group 81.8%, P = 0.024), and using this mannequin led to higher teacher-student interaction (control group 85.3% vs. experimental group 97.7%, P = 0.042). The overall effectiveness of the teaching was better in the experimental group than in the control group (control group 85.3% vs. experimental group 97.7%, P = 0.042). There was a significant positive correlation between teacher-student interactions and the overall effectiveness of teaching (R = 1.000; 95% CI, 1.000-1.000; P < 0.001).
conclusionThe PTEBL teaching method combined with Caesar can effectively improve student mastery of STB skills and overcome the shortcomings of traditional teaching methods, which has some promotional value in the training of outstanding doctoral candidates in STB skills.
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.