Trial reportBMC medical education2024
A randomized controlled trial comparison of PTEBL and traditional teaching methods in "Stop the Bleed" training.
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. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effectiveness and retention of extremity and junctional tourniquet training among medical interns.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Stop the Bleed (STB) training program was launched by the White House to minimize hemorrhagic deaths. Few studies focused on the STB were reported outside the United States. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a problem-, team- and evidence-based learning (PTEBL) approach to teaching, compared to traditional teaching methods currently employed in STB courses in China.
methodsThis study was a parallel group, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. We included third-year medical students of a five-year training program from the Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University who voluntarily participated in the trial. One hundred fifty-three medical students were randomized (1:1) into the PTEBL group (n = 77) or traditional group (n = 76). Every group was led by a single instructor. The instructor in the PTEBL group has experienced in educational reform. However, the instructor in the traditional group follows a traditional teaching mode. The teaching courses for both student groups had the same duration of four hours. Questionnaires were conducted to assess teaching quality before and after the course. The trial was registered in the Central South University (No. 2021JY188).
resultsIn the PTEBL group, students reported mastery in three fundamental STB skills-Direct Finger Compression (61/77, 79.2%), Packing (72/77, 93.8%), and Tourniquet Placement (71/77, 92.2%) respectively, while 76.3% (58/76), 89.5% (68/76), and 88.2% (67/76) of students in the traditional group (P > 0.05 for each pairwise comparison). 96.1% (74/77) of students in the PTEBL group felt prepared to help in an emergency, while 90.8% (69/76) of students in the traditional group (P > 0.05). 94.8% (73/77) of students reported improved teamwork skills after the PTEBL course, in contrast with 81.6% (62/76) of students in the traditional course (P = 0.011). Furthermore, a positive correlation was observed between improved clinical thinking skills and improved teamwork skills (R = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.88; P < 0.001).
conclusionsCompared with the traditional teaching method, the PTEBL method was superior in teaching teamwork skills, and has equally effectively taught hemostasis techniques in the emergency setting. The PTEBL method can be introduced to the STB training in China.
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.