ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Teaching medical students hematopathology: a randomized crossover study comparing direct inspection by light microscope versus projected images.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Students' ability to diagnose various blood disorders could be substantially improved by continuously reviewing approaches toward teaching hematology. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of light microscopes and projected images on students' learning and determine medical students' perception of these teaching methods. Methods: A randomized trial was conducted using a crossover design. Two groups, each with 30 students, were subjected to teaching methods based on light microscopes and projected images alternatively. Results: No differences were found in the two study groups' baseline characteristics, such as median age, sex, and prior academic performance, as well as in the pre-test scores. Post-test scores were significantly higher among students subjected to the projection method than in the control group (Mean ± SD = 9.8 ± 1.7 vs. 5.1 ± 1.3, Conclusion: The projection-based teaching method is more effective in improving knowledge and achieving intended learning outcomes. Students tend to prefer the projection method over the laboratory-based method and perceive it as an effective method to enhance their learning of hematology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.