ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2022
Step-by-Step Method Combined with Simulation-Enhanced Learner Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery Education.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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.
- Learning curve in evaluation of graded progressive image-model teaching in echocardiography.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Real-time deep learning for tumor segmentation and tool tracking: development and validation of an AI navigation system in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
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
Purpose: Traditional standardized training in ultrasound-guided minimally invasive breast surgery (UMIBS) focused on lecture-based learning (LBL) resulted in students' insufficient analysis, limited spatial visual conversion ability, and poor practical application. This study examined the effects of the step-by-step (SBS) method combined with a simulation model in UMIBS education. Subjects and Methods: A total of 84 residents participated in this study. The residents were divided into the SBS group (experience group, n=42) and the LBL group (control group, n=42), and the same teacher taught the two groups to ensure a comparable result. Based on the pork simulation model, two experts evaluated student performance scores, and the total time taken by each student was also counted. The participants were surveyed with 7 questions after the training, and each answer was assigned a score of 1, 2 or 3 to compare the participants' satisfaction. Results: The average value of the surgical skills for SBS group were significantly higher than LBS group, which was 82.8±4.4 and 72.7±4.0 (t=4.27, P<0.001), the time spend of neoplasm localization by the experience group was significantly less than the control group, which was 17.9±1.6 and 20.9±1.2 secs, (t=1.58, P<0.001), and there were significant differences in puncture accuracy and excision integrity between the two groups (P<0.05). In addition, the results of the questionnaire survey showed that learning interest, surgical ability and satisfaction were better in the SBS group than in the LBS group (P<0.05), and there were no significant differences in clinical thinking and learning pressure between the two groups. Conclusion: The SBS teaching method may help to improve the surgical skills and learning interest, as well as reduce adverse reactions and cultivate clinical thinking of the students in UMIBS training. Future studies could consider multicenter clinical research to further confirm the practicality of this teaching method and reduce the risk of deviation.
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.