ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2022
Evaluating the baseline auscultation abilities of second-year chiropractic students using simulated patients and high-fidelity manikin simulators: A pilot study.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the ability of 2nd-year students to identify normal and abnormal findings during cardiac and lung auscultation using high-fidelity manikin simulators and standardized patients. A secondary objective was to assess students' perceived competence and confidence in their abilities.
methodsThis was a descriptive pilot study of randomly selected 2nd-year students at 1 chiropractic training program. Participants were asked to perform cardiac and lung auscultation on high-fidelity manikins (2 stations) and standardized human patients (2 stations) with normal and abnormal auscultation sounds. Participants described the auscultated sound as "abnormal" or "normal" and were also asked to score their confidence in describing the sound and competence in performing auscultation on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables.
resultsThirty-two students (23 women and 9 men) were included. For lung auscultation, 15.6% were incorrect on the human subject and 6.2% were incorrect on the manikin. For cardiac auscultation, 62.5% were incorrect on the human subject and 40.6% were incorrect on the manikin. Confidence mean scores ranged from 34.8 to 60. Competence mean scores ranged from 34.8 to 50.
conclusionResults identified that 2nd-year students from 1 institution were correct in identifying an abnormal sound during lung auscultation but reported low levels of perceived competence or confidence in their responses. They performed poorly on cardiac auscultation and reported low perceived confidence and competence in their abilities to perform cardiac auscultation and identify sounds.
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.