ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2023
Remote Synchronous Laceration Repair Instruction With Summary Feedback.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Social distancing and quarantine requirements imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote training in many learning situations that formerly focused on traditional in-person training. In this context, we developed an adaptive approach to teaching laceration repair remotely while allowing for synchronous instruction and feedback. Methods: In April 2020, 35 family medicine residents from 4 programs in the Midwest United States participated in a real-time, remotely-delivered, 2-hour virtual procedure workshop of instruction in suture techniques for laceration repair. Paired-sample Results: All residents completed the pre- and posttests. The posttest scores for self-confidence across the participants showed significant improvement for all suture techniques. Of the 67 short-answer responses, 38 responses (56.7%) were positive; 9 (13.4%) negative; 8 (11.9%) neutral; and 12 (17.9%) a combination of positive and negative. The workshop was rated by 34 residents (97.1%) as either "about the same as prior training experiences," "better than prior training experiences," or "much better than prior training experiences." Conclusion: Learners reported that a remotely-delivered, real-time, synchronous suture technique workshop was a valuable experience. Further research is needed to establish the efficacy of this platform to promote procedural competence.
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.