ArticleBMC medical education2025
"Addressing the urgent need for external cephalic version training and promotion: a survey on theoretical course and practical workshops participants" - a pilot study.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesExternal cephalic version (ECV) is a valuable technique for reducing the incidence of planned cesarean deliveries due to fetal malpresentation. The objective of the study was to evaluate the impact of a course conducted by specialists from a top-tier reference hospital on participants and their willingness to incorporate the acquired knowledge of performing external cephalic version (ECV) into their daily medical practice.
methodsA survey-based study was conducted among 20 participants, including gynecology and obstetrics residents and specialists, who attended an ECV training course. The course combined theoretical instruction with hands-on practice. Knowledge and confidence levels were assessed before and after the course using standardized questionnaires and a 14-question test. The survey consists of a substantive part, testing the participant's knowledge before and after the course, and a survey part, asking about the expectations, level of satisfaction, and sense of confidence in performing the procedure after the course. The normality of the data was assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test, Student's t-test was applied for variables with normal distribution whereas the Mann-Whitney U test was used for variables with non-normal distribution.
resultsOut of the 20 respondents, only 15 successfully completed the surveys, as some responses were incomplete or unclear, some participants completed only the pre-course survey, and others provided multiple selections. In the initial knowledge test, participants achieved an average score of 7.8 out of 14 points (± 1.86), which increased to 12.33 points (± 1.84) in the post-course test. This reflects an average improvement of 4.53 points (± 2.55) out of 14, corresponding to a group average 68.15% (± 49%) increase in knowledge (p < 0,001).
conclusionThe study demonstrates that structured ECV training significantly enhances both knowledge and hopefully confidence among gynecologists and obstetricians. Participants showed a notable improvement in theoretical understanding and readiness to perform ECV. These findings highlight the need to integrate ECV training into specialist education to promote its wider adoption and potentially reduce cesarean section rates.
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.