ArticleHeliyon2023
Can Orthopaedic Surgeons adequately assess an Electrocardiogram (ECG) trace paper? A cross sectional study.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the ECG trace paper evaluation current knowledge level in a group of Orthopaedic surgeons divided into juniors and seniors according to M.D. degree possession. Methods: A cross sectional study through self-administered questionnaires at a university hospital Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Department. The questionnaire included five sections: 1-Basic participants' characteristics, 2-Participants' perception of their ECG evaluation current knowledge level, 3-The main body of the questionnaire was an ECG quiz (seven); the participant was asked to determine if it was normal and the possible diagnosis, 4-Participants' desired ECG evaluation knowledge level, and 5-Willingness to attend ECG evaluation workshops. Results: Of the 121 actively working individuals in the department, 96 (97.3 %) finished the questionnaire, and 85 (77.3 %) were valid for final evaluation. The participants' mean age was 30.4 ± 6.92 years, 76.5 % juniors and 23.5 % seniors. 83.5 % of the participants perceived their current ECG evaluation knowledge as none or limited. For participants' ability to evaluate an ECG, higher scores were achieved when determining if the ECG was normal or abnormal, with a mean score percentage of 79.32 % ± 23.27. However, the scores were lower when trying to reach the diagnosis, with a mean score percentage of 43.02 % ± 27.48. There was a significant negative correlation between the participant's age and answering the normality question correctly (r = -0.277, p = 0.01); and a significant positive correlation between answering the diagnosis question correctly and the desired level of knowledge and the intention to attend a workshop about ECG evaluation, r = 0.355 (p = 0.001), and r = 0.223 (p = 0.04), respectively. Only 56.5 % of the participants desired to get more knowledge, and 81.2 % were interested in attending ECG evaluation workshops. Conclusion: Orthopaedic surgeons showed sufficient knowledge when determining the normality of ECG trace papers; however, they could not reach the proper diagnosis, and Junior surgeons performed slightly better than their senior peers. Most surgeons are willing to attend ECG evaluation and interpretation workshops to improve their knowledge level.
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.