ArticleBMC medical education2023
Use of a two-handed model to improve comprehension of ventricular outflow tract anatomy.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. 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.
- Real-time vectorcardiography simulator system.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMastering cardiac anatomy is a formidable obstacle in the learning process for cardiac electrophysiology trainees. The complex three-dimensional characteristics and contiguous relationship of the ventricular outflow tract are particularly difficult to visualize with the limited study methods available. The hands can recreate a morphology similar to the ventricular outflow tract; this study explored whether a two-handed model of the heart helps electrophysiology trainees improve their understanding of ventricular outflow tract anatomy.
methodsAfter an initial assessment, trainees were randomly placed into variable and control groups. Subsequently, all trainees learned the outflow tract anatomy using routine methods, with the variable group receiving additional instruction using the two-handed model. One day and one week after the course conclusion, knowledge of the ventricular outflow tract anatomy was assessed for the participants in both groups.
resultsThirty-eight trainees participated (19 in each group). The median scores obtained for the first, second, and third tests were 38 (24,55), 80 (70,86), and 75 (70,81) points, respectively. In the second test, trainees in the variable group had a mean score 6.8 points higher than those in the control group (p = 0.103); in the last test, the mean score was 9.7 points higher in the variable group than in the control group (p = 0.003).
conclusionsIt is convenient to use hands to create a model representing the ventricular outflow tract. Trainees using this model had a better understanding and retention of the ventricular outflow tract anatomy compared to those of the control group.
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.