ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2022
Coagulation test understanding and ordering by medical trainees: Novel teaching approach.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plasma transfusion practice: A five-year audit of plasma transfusion at 23 hospitals.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Evaluation of hemostasis understanding in medical and pharmacy students from a Parisian university.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- New insight into the traditional model of the coagulation cascade and its regulation: illustrated review of a three-dimensional view.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Coagulation test understanding and ordering by medical trainees: Novel teaching approach.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Interactive online clinicopathologic case simulations in coagulation disorders for pathology residency programs: A multi-institutional study.Academic pathologyArticle
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
Background: Coagulation testing provides a prime opportunity to make an impact on the reduction of unnecessary laboratory test ordering, as there are clear indications for testing. Despite the prothrombin time/international normalized ratio and activated partial thromboplastin time being validated for specific clinical indications, they are frequently ordered as screening tests and often ordered together, suggesting a gap in understanding of coagulation. Methods: Based on a needs assessment, we developed an online educational module on coagulation for trainees, incorporating education on testing cost, specificity, and sensitivity. Fifty participating resident physicians and medical students completed a validated premodule quiz, postmodule quiz after completion of the module, and a latent quiz 3 to 6 months after to assess longer-term knowledge retention. Trainees provided responses regarding their subjective laboratory test-ordering practices before and after module completion. Results: The median premodule quiz score was 67% (n = 50; range, 24%-86%) with an increase of 24% to a median postmodule quiz score of 91% (n = 50; range, 64%-100%). There was evidence of sustained knowledge acquisition with a latent quiz median score of 89% (n = 40; range, 67%-100%). Trainees were more likely to consider the sensitivity, specificity, and cost of laboratory investigations before ordering them following completion of the educational module. Conclusions: Using the expertise of medical educators and incorporating trainee feedback, we employed a novel approach to the teaching of coagulation to maximize its approachability and clinical relevance. We found sustained knowledge retention regarding coagulation and appropriate coagulation test ordering, and a subjective change to trainee ordering habits following participation in our educational intervention.
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.