ArticleHNO2024
[Feasibility of clinical examination scenarios under pandemic conditions].
Article in HNO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
backgroundDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, contact restrictions occurred worldwide, which affected medical schools as well. It was not possible to hold classroom lectures. Teaching contents had to be converted to a digital curriculum within a very short time. Conditions for assessments posed an even greater challenge. For example, solutions had to be found for objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE), which were explicitly forbidden in some German states. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an OSCE under pandemic conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsAt the end of the 2020 summer semester, 170 students completed a combined otolaryngology and ophthalmology OSCE. Examinations were held in small groups over the course of 5 days and complied with strict hygiene regulations. The ophthalmology exam was conducted face to face, and the ENT OSCE virtually. Students were asked to rate the OSCE afterwards.
resultsBetween 106 and 118 of the students answered the questions. Comparing the face-to-face OSCE with the virtual OSCE, about 49% preferred the face-to-face OSCE and 17% preferred the virtual OSCE; 34% found both variants equally good. Overall, the combination of an ENT and ophthalmology OSCE was rated as positive.
conclusionIt is possible to hold an OSCE even under pandemic conditions. For optimal preparation of the students, among other things, it is necessary to transform teaching contents to a digital curriculum. The combination of an ENT and ophthalmology OSCE was positively evaluated by the students, although the face-to-face OSCE was preferred. The overall high satisfaction of the students confirms the feasibility of a virtual examination with detailed and well-planned preparation.
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.