Trial reportPloS one2025
Personalized education approach based on cognitive psychology for endoscopic diagnosis: A multicenter randomized trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The learning curve for endoscopic diagnosis varies, and an optimal educational strategy is not available. Working memory (WM) refers to an individual's ability to store and process information quickly and simultaneously. This study aimed to determine whether educational methods, optimized by individual WM, facilitate learning about endoscopic diagnoses. In the development phase, the standard WM profile for general endoscopists was determined by 79 endoscopists. In the validation phase, 60 trainees from four Japanese institutions were assessed for visuospatial or verbal WM dominance, based on the standard WM profile, and randomly assigned to receive matched (Matched-E group) or unmatched (Unmatched-E group) education. In the Matched-E group, the visuospatial and verbal WM-dominant trainees learned the endoscopic diagnosis of colorectal polyps by pattern recognition and through the description text of narrow-band imaging classification, respectively. In the Unmatched-E group, participants received education that was opposite to their dominant WM type. The diagnostic accuracy of the endoscopic diagnosis of colorectal polyps was compared between the groups after each educational session. Among the 60 trainees, 40 (21 in Matched-E and 19 in Unmatched-E) completed the validation test. The diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the Matched-E group than that in the Unmatched-E group (61.6% vs. 53.9%, P = 0.008). The diagnostic accuracy for non-neoplastic lesions was higher in the Matched-E group than that in the Unmatched-E group (68.0% vs. 48.4%, P = 0.002), whereas it did not differ for adenoma, intramucosal cancer, or invasive cancer. The personalized education based on the WM profile facilitated learning endoscopic diagnosis.
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.