ArticleCureus2024
Development and National Validation of a Musculoskeletal Emergency Medicine Assessment Tool.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints and injuries are the fourth most common primary diagnosis in the emergency department in the United States (US). Despite the prevalence and economic impact on the US healthcare system, new emergency medicine (EM) residency graduates report feeling unprepared to treat MSK complaints. Currently, there are no reported means to assess MSK knowledge in EM resident physicians. The purpose of this study is to develop a validated and peer-reviewed multiple-choice assessment tool focused on MSK knowledge relevant to EM to allow us to better assess the knowledge of resident physicians. Methods A group of EM/Sports Medicine subject-matter experts (SMEs) created an initial list of the most important MSK topics in EM to generate a relevant question bank. The questions were validated by a different group of SMEs using a three-round modified Delphi method to obtain consensus on the importance of each question. Based on these results, the assessment was formed. Results From a list of 99 MSK topics, SMEs developed a final list of 37 MSK topics relevant to EM. Following round one, free-marginal kappa was 0.58, 95% CI [0.50, 0.66], with a moderate overall agreement of 71.95%. Following round two, the calculated free-marginal kappa increased to 0.88, 95% CI [0.83, 0.92], with an overall agreement of 91.79%. Using a five-point Likert scale, a threshold of an average score less than four was used to exclude questions in round three of validation and to create a final 50-question assessment tool. Conclusion Our proposed exam, titled Musculoskeletal Emergency Medicine Assessment Tool (MEAT), was successfully validated by experts in our field. It evaluates clinically important topics and offers a tool for assessing MSK knowledge in EM resident physicians. Future studies are needed to determine the feasibility of administering the tool and to establish a baseline score among different populations within the practicing field of EM.
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.