ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2022
Development and Application of "Cervical Dilatation Model for Teaching and Training".
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expert Evaluation of a Medical Simulation Model for Cervical Examination to Assess Progress of Labor in Nursing and Midwifery Education: A Collaborative Technology Innovation.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Each year nursing schools pay more for teaching equipment at the nursing laboratory to improve practical skills. The development of the cervical dilatation model for teaching to reduce teaching and training costs is essential. This research aimed at developing a kind of cervical dilatation model for teaching and training. Methods: Developing a cervical dilatation model for teaching and training with the same structure and operation configuration is like the cervical dilatation model in laboratory practices of nursing. The appearance, structure, and operating accessories were developed from the original. The differences between the original cervical dilatation model and the cervical dilatation model for teaching and training are as follows: the original cervical dilatation model has only vaginal and fetal skulls of various sizes but the cervical dilatation model for teaching and training content follows vaginal, ischial spine, fetal skulls of various sizes, and cervical dilation and effacement. We then compare the teaching effect of the cervical dilatation model for teaching and training with the original cervical dilatation model (including knowledge, vaginal exam scores, and satisfaction after training). Results: There was no significant difference in the knowledge and vaginal examination scores of the experimental group and control group before training. The vaginal examination scores in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group and scored before, immediately after, and two weeks after the intervention was statistically significantly higher than before training at 0.05 (68.86 ± 3.89, 88.10 ± 2.52, 91.06 ± 1.33) and the trainees had maximum satisfaction in the training. Conclusion: The cervical dilatation model for teaching and training was highly efficient, and knowledge and practice among nursing students in the intervention group increased after training. The cervical dilatation model for teaching and training could help reduce the cost of teaching equipment, increase teaching and training resources, and improve the trainee's knowledge and practice skills.
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.