Trial reportPloS one2024
The sustainability effects of two reading interventions on Saudi nursing students' comprehension of scientific research.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
backgroundScientific literature is presented in complex language, most frequently in English, and includes technical jargon that represents a challenge to comprehension of an English as a foreign language (EFL) nursing student. Yet scientific literature is a powerful and trustworthy source of evidence to guide nursing practice. PURPOSE: The aim is to examine two reading interventions (Translation vs Synthesization) and to determine which one produces long-term sustainability effects in scientific research reading comprehension.
methodA two-group posttest-only randomized comparative design was used in which 120 participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Several instruments were used to collect the data.
resultsStudy findings showed that the synthesization group significantly produced better results when compared with the translation group on both the immediate (p = 0.01) and the delayed (p = 0.013) reading comprehension tests. It shows also that gender differences have a significant impact on reading comprehension with a favor to males in the long-term reading comprehension outcome (p = 0.038) of synthesization and females in the short-term reading comprehension outcome (p = 0.015) of translation. English proficiency was significant with determination, metacognitive, and social skills in the synthesization group (p = 0.00, p = 0.01, p = 0.007 respectively).
conclusionThe results suggested that synthesization could be an effective reading approach in improving EFL nursing students' reading comprehension of scientific literature.
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.