Observational studyBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024
Dexterity assessment of hospital workers: prospective comparative study.
Observational study in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutical Strategies to Prevent Abdominoplasty Complications: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Global inequities in biologic and targeted DMARD use in rheumatoid arthritis: cross-sectional data from the international COVAD-2 cohort.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Swearing as a catalyst of technological development.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A multifunctional AIE probe with dual organelle targeting and without crosstalk for the simultaneous detection of SOMikrochimica acta · 2025Article
- 3,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid methyl ester from Vespa velutina auraria Smith against rheumatoid arthritis via modulating the apoptosis and inflammation through NF-κB pathway.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Article
- Swearing enhances manual dexterity.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the manual dexterity and composure under pressure of people in different hospital staff roles using a buzz wire game.
designProspective, observational, comparative study (Tremor study).
settingLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK, during a three week period in 2024.
participants254 hospital staff members comprising of 60 physicians, 64 surgeons, 69 nurses, and 61 non-clinical staff.
main outcome measuresSuccessful completion of the buzz wire game within five minutes and occurrence of swearing and audible noises of frustration.
resultsOf the 254 hospital staff that participated, surgeons had significantly higher success rates in completing the buzz wire game within five minutes (84%, n=54) compared with physicians (57%, n=34), nurses (54%, n=37), and non-clinical staff (51%, n=31) (P<0.001). Time-to-event analysis showed that surgeons were quicker to successfully complete the game, independent of age and gender. Surgeons exhibited the highest rate of swearing during the game (50%, n=32), followed by nurses (30%, n=21), physicians (25%, n=60), and non-clinical staff (23%, n=14) (P=0.004). Non-clinical staff showed the highest use of frustration noises (75%), followed by nurses (68%), surgeons (58%), and physicians (52%) (P=0.03).
conclusionsSurgeons showed greater dexterity, but higher levels of swearing compared with other hospital staff roles, while nurses and non-clinical staff showed the highest rates of audible noises of frustration. The study highlights the diverse skill sets across hospital staff roles. Implementation of a surgical swear jar initiative should be considered for future fundraising events.
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.