ArticleBMC medical education2024
A survey of anaesthetic training logbook management among postgraduate students.
Article 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 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.
- Final-year logbooks in otorhinolaryngology in Germany - insights from a needs analysis and user experience study of final-year students and supervisors.GMS journal for 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA logbook system is essential to ensure standardized competency in medical education. This survey will provide the first overview of our current logbook and can serve as an initial proposal for improvement to a more relevant and valuable tool to assess our postgraduate training programme.
methodsThis survey was conducted among all Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) anaesthetic trainees. The data for this survey was collected by using Google Forms. A link to the form was distributed to all UKM anaesthetic trainees. The survey questionnaire consisted of five sections, demographic data, strengths and weaknesses of logbook content, evaluation of logbook usage experience, perception of the feedback received regarding the logbook performance, and potential improvements that can be made.
results107 anaesthetic trainees participated in this study. All of the sections in the logbook were deemed relevant by more than 60% of the trainees except for the on-call section which was seen as relevant only by 37.4% of them. 53.3% agreed that the logbook is useful for learning during the course. However, only 43.9% of them perceived that the logbook was easy and convenient to use. Only 59 respondents received feedback regarding their logbook performance. The analysis of open-ended answers highlights the necessity of transitioning to a fully digitalized logbook system for easy accessibility. It also reveals the need to re-evaluate specific logbook contents and incorporate additional teaching and learning tools to enhance the overall training process. Moreover, the findings emphasize the importance of effectively implementing feedback mechanisms within the logbook system to optimize student learning.
conclusionServing as a foundational step towards developing a more efficient and structured educational tool, this research provides valuable insights for future advancements in medical education, particularly in anaesthesiology.
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.