Trial reportRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2023
Cervical dilation assessment in simulators compared to a visual tool: A randomized study.
Trial report in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2023. 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto verify the correct assessment rate when using direct visual comparison in the cervical dilation measures in hard-consistency cervix simulation models.
methodan open-label and randomized study conducted with 63 Obstetrics students that were designated either to use direct visual comparison in a dilation guide or not. The students estimated cervical dilation blindly in simulators with different dilations. The primary outcome was the correct assessment rate.
resultsthe students performed 141 tests. A higher correct assessment rate was found in the Experimental Group than in the Control Group (47.3% versus 27.2%; p<0.001; Odds Ratio = 2.41; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.62-3.58).
conclusionthe direct visual comparison increased precision of the cervical dilation assessment in cervix simulation models, with the possibility of being beneficial in laboratory training. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials No. U1111-1210-2389.
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.