ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Teaching clinical hematology and leukocyte differentiation in veterinary medicine using virtual patients.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Active Learning Strategies in Veterinary Medicine: A Literature Review.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Review
- Results of digitised blood smear differentiations by veterinary students using item analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Veterinary teaching in COVID-19 times: perspectives of university teaching staff.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to contact restrictions imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we created a novel digital course on the Moodle learning platform for winter term in 2020. In the clinical pathology course (CPC) with hematological content, third-year students were able to work independently on 10 extra digital cases of internal medicine involving eight different animal species as a compensation for the reduction in traditional microscopy exercises. Each case presented was initiated using an anamnesis, also the participants to generate a differential blood count based on digitized leukocytes, previously been photographed using a microscope camera. The cases were successive and increased in complexity, for example through the increase in the number of different cell types to be differentiated. The participants had the opportunity to evaluate the course through a final module to rate user-friendliness and acceptance. The total results of the participants in 2021 were analyzed descriptively, focusing on success rates, time spent on the tasks, and number of attempts. A total of 237 (= 96%) of 247 students completed all cases, each assessing 1033 photographed blood cells in sum. The mean processing time was 22.48 min for a differentiation and the students spent an average of 1.48 attempts on it. A voluntary feedback form was completed by 192 (= 78%) students, with more than 95% rating the course positively in 12 evaluation questions, and 29 of 33 comments (= 87.88%) providing positive statements in a comment box. Suggestions for improvement primarily included more explanations on erythrocyte morphologies, followed by adjusting the difficulty level and improving the presentational set-up. Slight improvements in results, time spent on processing the tasks, and the number of attempts indicated an achievement of routine and confidence during the course and were associated with an increase of competency. The positive feedback showed a high acceptance of the digital format and students evaluated the course as improving the quality of teaching when combined with practical exercises.
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.