ArticleBMC medical education2023
Difficulties in using simulation to assess abdominal palpation skills.
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 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAbdominal palpation is an essential examination to diagnose various digestive system diseases. This study aimed to develop an objective and standardized test based on abdominal palpation simulators, and establish a credible pass/fail standard of basic competency.
methodsTwo tests were designed using the newly developed Jucheng abdominal palpation simulator (test 1) and the AbSim simulator (test 2), respectively. Validity evidence for both tests was gathered according to Messick's contemporary framework by using experts to define test content and then administering the tests in a highly standardized way to participants of different experience. Different simulator setups modified by the built-in software were selected from hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, positive McBurney's sign plus rebound tenderness, gallbladder tenderness (Murphy's sign), pancreas tenderness, and a normal setup without pathologies, with six sets used in test 1 and five sets used in test 2. Different novices and experienced were included in the tests, and test 1 was also administered to an intermediate group. Scores and test time were collected and analyzed statistically.
resultsThe internal consistency reliability of test 1 and test 2 showed low Cronbach's alphas of 0.35 and -0.41, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for palpation time across cases were 0.65 for test 1 and 0.76 for test 2. There was no statistical difference in total time spent and total scores among the three groups in test 1 (P-values (ANOVA) were 0.53 and 0.35 respectively), nor between novices and experienced groups in test 2 (P-values (t-test) were 0.13 and 1.0 respectively). It was not relevant to try to establish pass/fail standards due to the low reliability and lack of discriminatory ability of the tests.
conclusionsIt was not possible to measure abdominal palpation skills in a valid way using either of the two standardized, simulation-based tests in our study. Assessment of the patient's abdomen using palpation is a challenging clinical skill that is difficult to simulate as it highly relies on tactile sensations and adequate responsiveness from the patients.
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.