Trial reportBMC medical education2024
"Seeing inside out": revealing the effectiveness of otoscopy training in virtual reality enhanced practical exams - a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to assess the impact of different training modalities on otoscopy performance during a practical exam using a high-fidelity simulator and to determine if objective evaluation of otoscopy is feasible using a simulator that records insertion depth and tympanic membrane coverage.
methodsParticipants were assigned to one of four groups: control and three intervention groups with varying training approaches. Participants received otoscopy training and then were assessed through a practical exam on a high-fidelity simulator that uses virtual reality to visualize the ear canal and middle ear. Performance was evaluated using a modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills checklist and Integrated Procedural Performance Instrument checklist. Insertion depth, tympanic membrane coverage, and correct diagnosis were recorded. Data were tested for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way ANOVA and, for non-normally distributed data, Kruskal-Wallis test combined with Dunn's test for multiple comparisons were used. Interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen's κ and Intraclass correlation coefficient.
resultsAll groups rated their training sessions positively. Performance on the OSATS checklist was similar among groups. IPPI scores indicated comparable patient handling skills. The feedback group examined larger tympanic membrane areas and had higher rates of correct diagnosis. The correct insertion depth was rarely achieved by all participants. Interrater reliability for OSATS was strong. IPPI reliability showed good correlation.
conclusionRegardless of training modality, participants perceived learning improvement and skill acquisition. Feedback improved examination performance, indicating simulator-guided training enhances skills. High-fidelity simulator usage in exams provides an objective assessment of performance.
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.