Trial reportBMC medical education2024
Evaluating the efficacy of sequential cross-sectional scanning and combined teaching methods for prenatal screening of fetal conotruncal anomalies.
Trial report 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An educational intervention to bridge the gap between nurses and nurse assistants- a focus group study in Norway.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Utilization of artificial intelligence-based pulmonary nodule target reconstruction software in clinical practice education for standardized training residents.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the effectiveness of combining fetal heart sequential cross-sectional scanning with drawing methods, mind mapping, and case-based learning (CBL) for training in fetal conotruncal anomalies (CA) screening.
methodAn experimental control method was employed. Doctors participating in continuing fetal ultrasound education were randomly divided into two groups. Both groups received theoretical instruction on fetal heart embryology, development, and abnormal arterial trunk development. Group A received traditional teaching methods for both theory and skills, with the skills course focusing on routine fetal heart scanning. Group B received a mixed teaching approach incorporating pathological mind mapping, CBL teaching, and drawing methods for both theory and skills courses. Group B's skills training focused on the sequential cross-sectional scanning method. The effectiveness of the training was evaluated by analyzing the classroom learning results and conducting a questionnaire survey of both groups.
resultGroup B participants achieved significantly higher scores on both theoretical and skills assessments compared to Group A. The diagnostic accuracy of different diseases in group B was significantly higher than that in group A, except for AVSD and APW. The post-class questionnaire revealed that participants in Group B expressed greater satisfaction with the combined teaching approach. They perceived a significant improvement in their independent learning abilities, diagnostic skills for related diseases, clinical skills, and overall competence compared to the traditional teaching group. The post-training correlation analysis did not identify any association between working years and theoretical or technical performance after training.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that combining fetal heart sequential cross-sectional scanning with a variety of teaching methods, including drawing methods, mind mapping, and CBL, can enhance understanding of fetal trunk structure scanning and foster the development of clinical reasoning skills, ultimately leading to improved diagnostic accuracy in the identification and differential diagnosis of conotruncal anomalies.
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.