ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2026
[Evaluation of one-minute wonders in professional practice, research, and teaching].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One-minute wonders (OMWs) are used internationally and nationally in various settings as a part of educational initiatives. To date, there are no standardized criteria for evaluating OMWs within the framework of quality assurance and performance assessment. The aim of the current study was to develop a checklist and a criteria-based scoring system for testing and evaluating OMWs. The theory-based development of these instruments was carried out in a consensus process, drawing on cognitive load theory and the concept of microlearning. The result was a practical checklist consisting of 11 items. The criteria-based scoring system contains 9 main categories with 25 items, for which a total of 100 points can be reached in the quality assessment. The developed checklist and the derived assessment and evaluation criteria can serve as a resource for authors and instructors. In the long term, these recommendations should be evaluated and incorporated into a manual or reporting statement, for example through a Delphi study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803932What 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.