Trial reportHNO2022
[Interactive intraoperative annotation of surgical landmarks in student education to support learning efficiency and motivation].
Trial report in HNO, 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.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe development of technological innovations has not only changed social life and the healthcare system, but also affects medical education. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate whether students, when observing a microsurgical procedure of the temporal bone, gain an additional understanding of the anatomical structures and surgical site when visualization is used that provides identical views for the surgeon and viewer in 3D. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuring regular attendance tutorials, students were randomly assigned to three different groups: control group, 2D group, or 3D group. Evaluation questionnaires and intraoperative student annotation of the surgical view were used to assess the subjective didactic value of different visualization formats and resultant learning experiences for the students.
resultsA total of 47 students were included in the investigations during conventional attendance tutorials. The majority indicated a high added value of the 3D visualization in terms of method (70%) and vividness (80%) compared to the 2D group and self-study; 69% of the students fully agreed with the statement that 2D and 3D visualization increases learning motivation and is a very good way to improve recognition of anatomical topography and structures.
conclusionNew interactive visualization options in teaching promote learning efficiency and motivation among students. Especially 3D visualization and intraoperative annotation of the surgical view by the student is a useful didactic tool and increases the quality of clinical teaching. It supports the perception of anatomical topography and enables more focused surgical training.
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.