Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Rapid-cycle deliberate practice with an ex vivo porcine model of intussusception improves radiology residents' competence in air enema reduction.
Trial report 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
Abstract
backgroundAir enema reduction is the primary non-surgical intervention for pediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to determine if rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) with an ex vivo model of intussusception is more effective than traditional teaching methods (TTM) for improving radiology residents' air enema reduction competency.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 24 radiology residents were assigned to training with an ex vivo model of intussusception combined with RCDP (the RCDP group, n = 12) or without RCDP (the TTM group, n = 12). Both groups underwent assessments of theoretical knowledge and practical skills before and after training in air enema reduction, followed by evaluation of indicators of competency. Satisfaction with training and self-confidence surveys were also completed.
resultsPre-training assessments showed that baseline performance was comparable between the two groups (both P > 0.05). Post-training, both groups showed improvement from baseline (both P < 0.05), with the RCDP group demonstrating more pronounced improvement than the TTM group (RCDP: effect sizes = 2.06 and 1.94, TTM: effect sizes = 1.16 and 1.20). Furthermore, after training, mean theoretical and practical evaluation scores were significantly better in the RCDP group than in the TTM group ( 88.67 ± 5.88 vs. 82.41 ± 7.31, P = 0.031 and 89.17 ± 4.64 vs. 80.92 ± 6.65, P = 0.048, respectively), with a shorter mean procedural time (74.26 ± 8.25 s vs.133.41 ± 9.07 s, P = 0.044) and a lower mean reduction pressure (5.83 ± 0.27 kPa vs. 6.40 ± 0.10 kPa, P = 0.023). Residents in the RCDP group reported higher satisfaction scores (mean 4.58 ± 0.42 vs. 3.16 ± 0.38, P = 0.024) and higher self-confidence scores (P = 0.036).
conclusionsRCDP simulation is superior to TTM for training residents in air enema reduction skills. It is an effective simulation teaching method that offers a novel perspective for innovative instruction on the skills required to perform this complex clinical procedure.
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.