ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2023
Differences in learning retention and experience of augmented reality notes compared to traditional paper notes in a chiropractic technique course: A randomized trial.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate if a written guide or augmented reality (AR) guide improves free recall of diversified chiropractic adjusting technique and to capture participants' impressions of the study in a poststudy questionnaire.
methodsThirty-eight chiropractic students were evaluated for diversified listing (a nomenclature denoting vertebral malposition and correction) recall, pre-AR and post-AR, or written guide review. The vertebral segments used were C7 and T6. Two randomized groups reviewed an original course written guide (n = 18) or a new AR guide (n = 20). A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (C7) and t test (T6) compared group differences in reevaluation scores. A poststudy questionnaire was given to capture participants' impressions of the study.
resultsBoth groups showed no significant differences in free recall scores after reviewing the guides for C7 or T6. The poststudy questionnaire suggested a number of strategies could be used to improve current teaching material such as more detail in the written guides and organizing content into smaller blocks.
conclusionUse of an AR or written guide does not seem to change participants' free recall ability when used to review diversified technique listings. The poststudy questionnaire was useful to identify strategies to improve currently used teaching material.
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.