排名前三的骨科在职知识学习平台效果不同

A. Margalit, Patrick Mixa, Louis Day, M. Marrache, Stuart Mitchell, K. Suresh, K. Wang, Samir Sabharwal, T. P. Li, Alexander E. Loeb, Qais Naziri, R. Henn, D. Laporte
{"title":"排名前三的骨科在职知识学习平台效果不同","authors":"A. Margalit, Patrick Mixa, Louis Day, M. Marrache, Stuart Mitchell, K. Suresh, K. Wang, Samir Sabharwal, T. P. Li, Alexander E. Loeb, Qais Naziri, R. Henn, D. Laporte","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the influence of objective and subjective measures of the three learning programs (OrthoBullets [OB], ResStudy [RS], and Clinical Classroom [CC]) on resident test performance and study platform preference. Methods: Sixty residents from three orthopaedic residencies were included in this study during May 2020. Trauma, pediatrics, and hip/knee reconstruction (joints) were chosen as testing topics. Residents took a standardized pretest of 30 questions per topic, followed by the completion of 50 questions per day for 5 days using one of the three web-based programs, followed by a standardized subject-specific posttest. This cycle was repeated for all the three topics. Bivariate statistics and a mixed-effects linear regression model were used to compare improvements in the scores. Results: Across all learning platforms, topics, and postgraduate year classes, posttest scores were 4.4% higher than the pretest score (73.3% vs. 68.9%, P < 0.001): 6.8% higher with OB, 5.4% with RS, and 1.0% with CC. The score improvement with OB was significantly greater than the score improvement with CC (P < 0.001). In total, 100% of residents reported that using OB would improve their score on the orthopaedic in-training examination, compared with 95% with RS and 67% with CC. Conclusion: OB demonstrated the greatest improvement in scores, followed closely by RS and then CC.","PeriodicalId":145112,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Top Three Learning Platforms for Orthopaedic In-Training Knowledge Produce Different Results\",\"authors\":\"A. Margalit, Patrick Mixa, Louis Day, M. Marrache, Stuart Mitchell, K. Suresh, K. Wang, Samir Sabharwal, T. P. Li, Alexander E. Loeb, Qais Naziri, R. Henn, D. Laporte\",\"doi\":\"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the influence of objective and subjective measures of the three learning programs (OrthoBullets [OB], ResStudy [RS], and Clinical Classroom [CC]) on resident test performance and study platform preference. Methods: Sixty residents from three orthopaedic residencies were included in this study during May 2020. Trauma, pediatrics, and hip/knee reconstruction (joints) were chosen as testing topics. Residents took a standardized pretest of 30 questions per topic, followed by the completion of 50 questions per day for 5 days using one of the three web-based programs, followed by a standardized subject-specific posttest. This cycle was repeated for all the three topics. Bivariate statistics and a mixed-effects linear regression model were used to compare improvements in the scores. Results: Across all learning platforms, topics, and postgraduate year classes, posttest scores were 4.4% higher than the pretest score (73.3% vs. 68.9%, P < 0.001): 6.8% higher with OB, 5.4% with RS, and 1.0% with CC. The score improvement with OB was significantly greater than the score improvement with CC (P < 0.001). In total, 100% of residents reported that using OB would improve their score on the orthopaedic in-training examination, compared with 95% with RS and 67% with CC. Conclusion: OB demonstrated the greatest improvement in scores, followed closely by RS and then CC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":145112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较三个学习项目(OrthoBullets [OB]、ResStudy [RS]和Clinical Classroom [CC])的客观和主观测量对住院医师考试成绩和学习平台偏好的影响。方法:2020年5月,来自三家骨科住院医师的60名住院医师被纳入本研究。选择创伤、儿科和髋关节/膝关节重建(关节)作为测试主题。住院医师先进行每个主题30个问题的标准化预测,然后连续5天每天使用三个基于网络的程序之一完成50个问题,然后进行标准化的特定主题后测。所有三个主题都重复了这个循环。使用双变量统计和混合效应线性回归模型来比较得分的改善。结果:在所有学习平台、主题和研究生学年课程中,测试后得分比测试前得分高4.4%(73.3%比68.9%,P < 0.001), OB组高6.8%,RS组高5.4%,CC组高1.0%,OB组的分数提高显著大于CC组(P < 0.001)。总的来说,100%的住院医师报告使用OB会提高他们在骨科培训考试中的分数,而使用RS和CC的分数分别为95%和67%。结论:OB的分数提高最大,RS次之,CC次之。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Top Three Learning Platforms for Orthopaedic In-Training Knowledge Produce Different Results
Objective: To compare the influence of objective and subjective measures of the three learning programs (OrthoBullets [OB], ResStudy [RS], and Clinical Classroom [CC]) on resident test performance and study platform preference. Methods: Sixty residents from three orthopaedic residencies were included in this study during May 2020. Trauma, pediatrics, and hip/knee reconstruction (joints) were chosen as testing topics. Residents took a standardized pretest of 30 questions per topic, followed by the completion of 50 questions per day for 5 days using one of the three web-based programs, followed by a standardized subject-specific posttest. This cycle was repeated for all the three topics. Bivariate statistics and a mixed-effects linear regression model were used to compare improvements in the scores. Results: Across all learning platforms, topics, and postgraduate year classes, posttest scores were 4.4% higher than the pretest score (73.3% vs. 68.9%, P < 0.001): 6.8% higher with OB, 5.4% with RS, and 1.0% with CC. The score improvement with OB was significantly greater than the score improvement with CC (P < 0.001). In total, 100% of residents reported that using OB would improve their score on the orthopaedic in-training examination, compared with 95% with RS and 67% with CC. Conclusion: OB demonstrated the greatest improvement in scores, followed closely by RS and then CC.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信