Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35681190›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

Comparison of the BOPPPS model and traditional instructional approaches in thoracic surgery education.

Kang Hu, Rui-Jie Ma, Chao Ma, Qing-Kang Zheng, Zhi-Gang Sun

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Kang HuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Jinan Central Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250013, People's Republic of China.
Rui-Jie MaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Jinan Central Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250013, People's Republic of China.
Chao MaSchool of Clinical Medicine, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, 261053, People's Republic of China.
Qing-Kang ZhengSchool of Clinical Medicine, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, 261053, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Gang SunDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Jinan Central Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250013, People's Republic of China. sunszg@126.com.

Funding

Cheeloo College of Medicine undergraduate teaching reform and research project of Shandong University in 2020 qlyxjy-202042Research project of education and teaching reform of Shandong University in 2021 2021Y138The first-class undergraduate course construction project of Shandong First Medical University in 2020 2020XYK-18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBOPPPS (bridge-in, learning objective, pretest, participatory learning, posttest, and summary) is a student-centered modular teaching model that improves classroom teaching effectiveness. This study's primary aim was to explore whether the BOPPPS model has advantages over traditional instructional approaches in teaching lung cancer courses to clinical medical interns.

methodsA total of 88 students majoring in clinical medicine of Shandong First Medical University and Shandong University, who had clinical practice in thoracic surgery from January 2018 to December 2019, were divided into two groups, receiving the same lung cancer teaching content. The experimental group (n = 44) utilized the BOPPPS model, while the control group (n = 44) used the traditional instructional approach. A questionnaire was used to attain the students' satisfaction and self-evaluation of the course, and a post-study examination was used to assess end-of-course performance.

resultsThe experimental group's theoretical examination scores with the BOPPPS teaching model were significantly higher than those in the control group. Students preferred the BOPPPS model more than the traditional instructional approach in course satisfaction, student-teacher interaction, learning initiative, analytical ability, clinical thinking ability, and self-study ability (p < 0.05).

conclusionsCompared with the traditional instructional approach. The BOPPPS model can better inspire clinical medical students' enthusiasm for thoracic surgery and enhance the students' comprehensive ability. In a word, the BOPPPS model has better teaching effectiveness in the clinical teaching practice of thoracic surgery, which is worthy of reference and popularization.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsStudents, MedicalThoracic SurgeryEducational MeasurementHumansLearningTeachingBOPPPS modelClinical practiceMedical educationThoracic surgery educationTraditional instructional approach

Identifiers

PMID35681190
PMCPMC9185859

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.