Trial reportPloS one2026
Analyzing the comparative effectiveness of educational methods to foster children's dengue knowledge.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Education about dengue disease is fundamental for its prevention. However, the most effective methods for delivering this knowledge in schools remain unclear. In this study, we compared two widely used educational interventions on their effectiveness in increasing dengue knowledge. A cluster-randomized controlled trial, with pre- and post-evaluations was applied. Three hundred ninety 10-year-old children from primary schools in a low-socioeconomic status area of Argentina that is endemic for dengue, were assigned to one of three groups: workshop, an abbreviated workshop, or direct instruction. Dengue knowledge was assessed with a questionnaire before, immediately after the intervention, and one month later. Teacher effect, concepts taught, duration of intervention, and baseline knowledge were controlled for. A Generalized Linear Mixed Model indicated that the three interventions were equally effective in improving dengue knowledge, both immediately after the intervention (children learned 3 dengue concepts) and one month later (children retained 2 dengue concepts). However, each intervention is more effective in teaching some concepts in particular. Our results, among the very few comparing educational interventions in dengue knowledge, suggest that the optimal approach depends more on contextual factors (e.g., specific concepts taught) than on the inherent superiority of either method.
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.