Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2025
Does Orthopaedic Resident Pelvis Fluoroscopy Knowledge improve with testing with a Novel Pelvis Model and Educational website?
Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe tested whether residents would improve in fluoroscopy knowledge and ability after using an inexpensive novel pelvis model and educational website.
methodsTwenty-four orthopaedic residents were recruited from three United States residency programs and randomised into two groups with equal numbers of juniors and seniors. The OrthoAcademy group received educational materials from a website ( www.theorthoacademy.com ), whereas the control group did not. Survey scores, radiograph scores, number of fluoroscopic images taken, and overall radiation exposure were compared (1) between control and OrthoAcademy groups and (2) between junior and senior residents.
resultsBoth groups had higher radiograph scores at the second round of testing than at the first (P =.004). The OrthoAcademy group had higher post-test than pre-test knowledge survey scores (P =.045), whereas the control group did not (P =.54). However, the OrthoAcademy group did not have higher radiograph scores between tests (P =.15), whereas the control group did (P =.01). Junior residents had higher second-round than first-round radiograph scores (P =.005) and survey scores (P =.006), whereas senior residents did not (P =.24 radiograph scores) (P =.30 survey scores).
conclusionsTesting residents with this novel pelvis model improved the quality of the fluoroscopic images obtained by the residents, especially juniors. This study highlighted the need for more accessible resources for residents to learn about obtaining these images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39714470What 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.