Trial reportBMC medical education2025
A randomized controlled trial of curated X exposure for cardiac point of care ultrasound education.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundX (formerly known as Twitter) is a social media platform with a robust online medical education community, including point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) content.
objectiveOur study aimed to determine if following curated POCUS education accounts on X translated to improved cardiac image interpretation competency.
methodsWe conducted an unblinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial at three internal medicine residency programs and two medical schools. Participants were third- and fourth-year medical students or internal medicine residents. They followed either 10 POCUS education accounts on X (T) or 10 generic medical accounts on X (C) for three months. Participants took a survey and a 15 multiple-choice question assessment before and after the protocol.
resultsTwenty-nine participants completed the protocol, 13 T and 16 C. Mean changes in image interpretation scores were T: -0.02% and C: +0.02%, which did not significantly differ (p = 0.46). A simple linear regression evaluating for correlation between average time spent on X and change in image interpretation scores among the T participants did not show a significant correlation (R squared - 0.0002, p = 0.96).
conclusionsNatural X exposure to educational POCUS accounts did not result in statistically improved image interpretation scores, but this outcome was likely affected by limited sample size, different participant experiences, and other variables. Data from this novel trial design can better inform future studies on medical education with social media.
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.