ArticleBMC medical education2025
The use of graphical lung sound visualizations in medical education: an evaluation of its impact on clinical clerkship.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAuscultation is a simple physical examination that provides important clinical information. Many educational materials are available to facilitate students' understanding of lung auscultation. Some studies and teaching materials have visualized lung sounds as spectrograms. However, their effectiveness as educational tools remains unclear. Accordingly, this study evaluates the effect of auscultation education using lung sound visualization on medical students' diagnostic skills.
methodsParticipants were medical students completing their four-week clinical clerkship (CC) in the Department of Respiratory Medicine of Chiba University Hospital. Sixty-three students participated in this study between November 2022 and July 2023. They were divided into two groups: the full-term visualization group (n = 31) and the half-term visualization group (n = 32). Although both groups were taught lung sound visualization using simple diagrams, there was a two-week difference in the length of exposure. We taught visualization to the full-term visualization group on the first day of the CC, and to the half-term visualization group after the midpoint test. Thus, the full-term visualization group practiced lung auscultations with visualization for four weeks, while the half-term visualization group had two weeks of practice. All the students performed lung auscultation tests with a simulator three times: pre-test at the beginning, midpoint at the end of the second week, and post-test at the end of CC. In addition, they responded to questionnaires regarding lung auscultation at the beginning and end of CC.
resultsThe score gain from baseline in the lung auscultation tests at the midpoint was 0.5; p = 0.018). The increase in scores at the post-test was not significantly different between the two groups (median full-term, + 3.6; half-term, + 2.3; p = 0.060). The self-reported confidence, clinical reasoning ability, activity, and frequency of lung auscultation improved in both groups. The questionnaire responses indicated that the students accepted the value of lung sound visualization.
conclusionsDiffering the duration of exposure to lung sound visualization (two weeks and four weeks) showed no significant difference in medical students' auscultation skills.
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.