ArticleBMC medical education2025
A comparative analysis of palpatory acuity in chiropractic students between 2015 and 2024.
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
objectiveTo explore differences in palpatory acuity between two independent student cohorts from 2015 to 2024, and to assess the potential effect of pedagogical changes in the teaching of palpation skills that emphasize sensory awareness over anatomical identification at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic (NZCC).
methodsThis study was a comparative cross-sectional study using two independent student cohorts. In 2015, palpatory acuity was assessed in 199 chiropractic students (42.5% female, mean: 25.8 ± 7.4 years) from 4 different cohorts. In 2024, 154 students (54.5% female, mean: 23.6 ± 5.6 years) over 4 cohorts were assessed. Palpatory acuity was measured by the participant's ability to accurately locate a 0.1 mm nylon monofilament under a variable number of 80gsm white copying paper sheets while blindfolded. Unpaired Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess differences between timepoints (2015 and 2024) and year groups.
resultsThe 2024 group (mean: 67.8 ± 22.5 pages) demonstrated significantly higher palpatory acuity compared with the 2015 group (mean: 31.1 ± 22.4 pages, p < .001). All cohorts in 2024 outperformed their 2015 counterparts (p < .001). In both groups, acuity improved notably between cohorts in years 2 and 3 but showed minimal further gains in the final year. In the 2015 group, year 3 (mean: 38.0 ± 24.4) and year 4 (mean: 37.5 ± 20.1) students outperformed year 1 (mean: 25.1 ± 19.8, p = .028-0.040) and year 2 students (mean: 26.3 ± 22.6, p = .039-0.040). In the 2024 group, year 3 students (mean: 81.7 ± 15.2) performed significantly better than year 1 (mean: 59.8 ± 22.5, p < .001) and year 2 students (mean: 70.6 ± 17.5, p = .023). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that emphasizing sensory experience in palpation training may enhance student performance. Educators may consider integrating more structured haptic exercises early in curricula, while future research should explore longitudinal outcomes and the neural mechanisms underlying skill acquisition to guide further educational reform.
conclusionCurricular and pedagogical changes at NZCC were linked to significantly greater palpatory acuity in students. Palpatory acuity appears to improve early-to-midway through training (regardless of the method used to teach it), with limited gains thereafter. Practical experience and repetition contribute to improving acuity, but this study highlights the value of sensory-focused practice in curriculum design for chiropractic education.
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.