A randomized pilot validation of educational measures in teaching shoulder arthroscopy to surgical residents.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Injuries to the shoulder joint commonly require the attention of an orthopedic surgeon. Shoulder arthroscopy plays an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and repair of shoulder pathology; however, the most effective manner in which to teach orthopedic residents fundamental knowledge of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy before entering the operating room is unclear. We aimed to compare the existing cadaver-based teaching of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy knowledge with a method that combines model- and video-based teaching to orthopedic surgery residents in a randomized pilot trial. METHODS: A composite (model/video teaching) method was designed, using prepared teaching videos and the commercially available ALEX shoulder arthroscopy model. First- and second-year orthopedic surgery residents from the University of Calgary were consented, surveyed for their arthroscopy experience and randomized to either cadaver or composite teaching. Subjects wrote a pretest before their teaching session and a posttest afterwards to assess their knowledge of diagnostic arthroscopy. The tests were multiple choice, containing text and pictorial-based questions. The posttest was modified to minimize recall bias. Subjects were also surveyed for their comments regarding the teaching sessions. RESULTS: Nine of 10 subjects increased their test scores after the teaching sessions, with 4 of 5 in the cadaver-based and 5 of 5 in the composite groups. There were no differences between the teaching groups on their mean pre- or posttest scores. The composite group, but not the cadaver-based group, had a statistically significant increase in posttest scores. When the text- and pictorial-based question sections were analyzed separately, both groups significantly improved their mean text-based score, whereas only the composite group increased their mean pictorial-based questions score. Surveying the residents elicited positive comments regarding both manners of teaching. CONCLUSION: This pilot trial suggests that a composite teaching curriculum is at least as effective as a cadaver-based environment for teaching orthopedic surgery residents fundamental knowledge of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».