Trial reportNagoya journal of medical science2022
Effectiveness of a new interactive web teaching material for improving lung auscultation skills: randomized controlled trial for clinical nurses.
Trial report in Nagoya journal of medical science, 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.
- Article
- Influence of Gaussian White Noise on Medical Students' Capacity to Accurately Identify Pulmonary Sounds.Noise & healthArticle
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
We developed a new interactive web-based teaching material to improve lung auscultation skills. Our objective was to investigate the effectiveness of the web-based teaching material on nurses with less than one-year work experience, using a prospective, open-label, stratified block randomized controlled trial. Of the 69 participants, 23, 22, and 24 participants were assigned to the web-based, paper-based, and control (with no intervention) groups, respectively. Using a simulator, a discrimination test on seven lung sounds, such as "normal," "wheeze," "rhonchi," "coarse crackles," "fine crackles," "left lung diminish," and "right lung absent," was conducted. Next, a post-test was conducted after one-week of training. Answers with formal names were considered "correct"; those with common names, misspellings, and without left and right parts were considered "insufficient"; and wrong answers were considered "incorrect." The control group showed no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test for any lung sounds. The paper-based group showed significant improvement in performance for "wheeze" (
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.