Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38873331›Full record

ArticleSurgery open science2024

A junior doctor led near-peer acute ENT/head and neck surgery workshop for medical students.

Wendy Liu, Tamara Preda, Warren Hargreaves, Reginald V Lord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wendy LiuDepartment of Surgery, University of Notre Dame School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia.
Tamara PredaDepartment of Surgery, University of Notre Dame School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia.
Warren HargreavesDepartment of Surgery, University of Notre Dame School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia.
Reginald V LordDepartment of Surgery, University of Notre Dame School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Near-peer teaching (NPT) involves teaching by peers who are at a close, but not the same, level of training. This study investigated whether a novel surgical NPT workshop, designed and delivered by junior doctors using simulation models for acute otolaryngology conditions, improved the knowledge and confidence level of senior medical students. Methods: A one-day NPT workshop was held for medical students in their third year of a four-year postgraduate medical degree at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. Four acute otolaryngology/head and neck surgery problems that might be encountered by junior doctors and require prompt management were chosen. These were post-operative neck swelling, epistaxis, and tracheostomy management (obstruction and bleeding). Six junior doctors facilitated didactic tutorials and practical skills training using models. Multiple choice question mini-tests and questionnaires were administered before and after the workshop to assess changes in students' knowledge and confidence in assessment, management, and practical skills. Results: The most common reason for participation was to acquire knowledge and practical skills (93.2 %). Mean correct MCQ mini-test knowledge scores increased significantly from 60 % pre-workshop to 83.9 % post-workshop ( Conclusion: NPT is an effective method for teaching medical students how to assess and manage acute otolaryngology/ENT surgery conditions that may present as emergencies for junior medical officers on the ward.

Indexed as

ENT/head and neck surgeryGeneral surgeryNear peer teachingOtolaryngologySurgical education

Identifiers

PMID38873331
PMCPMC11170175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.