Trial reportScientific reports2024
An online, two-day educational seminar had no impact on disease-specific knowledge in patients with systemic sclerosis.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a multifaceted disease, and its diagnosis triggers substantial anxiety and uncertainty for those affected. Currently, there are no valid data describing the impact of disease-specific patient education on the disease knowledge available. We created a two-day, online educational seminar to provide SSc patients with disease-specific information. The primary objective of the study was to observe the change in the disease-specific knowledge of the patients. A total of 118 patients were randomized into an intervention group and a waiting list control group. The change in knowledge was assessed using a multiple-choice test. The intervention group completed the questionnaire before, directly after, and 3 months after the seminar, while the waiting list control group also took the test 3 months before the seminar to rule out nonspecific learning. The primary outcome measure was the score difference between baseline and 3 months after baseline. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (protocol code DRKS00024915). The educational seminar resulted in a small, but measurable, increase in knowledge. While the two tests in the waiting list control group prior to the seminar did not show a nonspecific increase in disease knowledge, the intervention led to a numerical increase in knowledge (mean ± sd score difference 0.34 ± 1.31, 95% CI (- 0.23; 0.86), p = 0.26) that did not reach statistical significance. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that being a member of a self-help group (β = 1.12; p = 0.03) is a positive predictor of a higher disease knowledge. Although highly appreciated by participants, a two-day online seminar may not be the most appropriate format to generate measurable disease-specific knowledge. Self-help group membership was a positive predictor of a higher level of disease-specific knowledge prior to the educational seminar and should be recommended to every affected person.
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.