ArticleBMC medical education2023
Improving surgical skills with feedback: directly-observed versus video-recorded practice.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the impact of video feedback and group discussion on patient education performance among medical interns: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of deliberate practices versus conventional lecture in trauma training for medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The application effect of the segmented teaching method in training medical students on clinical practice skills.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Identification of Core Interprofessional Preceptor Competencies and Development of a Preceptor Self-Assessment Tool.SAGE open nursingArticle
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
objectiveThis study aimed to compare two methods of feedback: verbal face-to-face feedback after direct observation (F2F-feedback) versus electronic-written feedback after observation of recorded-VDO of student's performance (VDO-feedback), in terms of effectiveness in improving skill, effects on motivation and satisfaction.
backgroundMedical schools are responsible for teaching and ensuring proficiency of basic surgical skills. Feedback is effective in developing psychomotor skills; by providing information of learner's current performance, how to improve, and enhancing motivation. MATERIALS AND
methodFifty-eight medical students (3
resultAfter in-class learning, further significant improvement of skills could be gained by both F2F- and VDO- feedbacks (p < 0.0001). Both could similarly retain skill for at least 4 weeks later without additional practice. Self-efficacy, test anxiety, and cognitive strategies scores were significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Extrinsic motivation was increased in VDO-feedback group. No difference in satisfaction between groups was observed. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionVDO-feedback could be alternative to F2F-feedbacks for basic surgical skill training when limitation for simultaneous meeting of teacher and students occurs.
trial registrationThis study has been registered to Thai Clinical Trial Registry (WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform) on 11/07/2023 (TCTR20230711005).
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.