Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Online versus offline Fugl-Meyer lower extremity training for physical therapy students: a randomized study.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandardized training is essential for improving the accuracy and reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the lower extremities (FMA-LE), yet evidence comparing online and offline education for this purpose is limited.
objectiveTo compare online versus offline education for improving FMA-LE scoring accuracy among novice physical therapy students and to examine changes in accuracy across repeated practice sessions.
methodsForty-four students were assigned to offline (n = 24) or online (n = 20) education groups and received identical FMA-LE content delivered either in person or online. Participants completed four practice scoring sessions and one final test using video-recorded stroke cases. Scoring accuracy, defined as the percentage of exact agreement with expert ratings across 17 items, was analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, and item-level differences were explored using Fisher's exact tests.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant improvements in overall scoring accuracy from baseline to the final test (F(1, 42) = 9.85, p = .003, partial η² = 0.16), with no significant difference between the online and offline education groups (F(1, 42) = 1.23, p = .273, partial η² = 0.03). Scoring accuracy improved progressively across the five sessions, with significant gains appearing at the third practice session (p = .009) and persisting through the final test (p = .007) relative to baseline. Additionally, certain items, such as synergistic ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion, remained more difficult, with no significant between-group differences.
conclusionsNo significant difference was observed between online and offline education in improving FMA-LE scoring accuracy, suggesting that online training may be a viable and effective alternative for standardized assessment training.
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.