Skip to main content

Table 4 Item-based analysis of the examination results between the video-based ‘4-step Approach’ group (4SA) and the ‘See One, Do One’ (SODO) group at T1 and T2. Significant differences in favor of the video-based ‘4-step Approach’ group could be found in the subgroups ‘material preparation’ and ‘catheter insertion’. No differences were found at T2. Shown in the table are the means in percent, the standard deviation (±) in percent and the confidence interval (CI)

From: Comparing video-based versions of Halsted’s ‘see one, do one’ and Peyton’s ‘4-step approach’ for teaching surgical skills: a randomized controlled trial

 Material preparationCatheter InsertionTamponade Fixation
4SAExaminer 1 (post-training)83.3% (± 3.6%; CI = 81,9–84.0)96.6% (± 6.0%; CI = 94.2–97.7)58.3% (± 14.0%; CI = 53.9–62.0)
Examiner 2 (post-training)94.3% (± 10.0%; CI = 91.0–96.9)98.3% (± 4.3%; CI = 96.7–99.2)53.4% (± 18.3%; CI = 47.6–58.3)
retention88.1% (± 20.7%; CI = 81.9–94.0)98.2% (± 4.4%; CI = 96.7–99.2)73.8% (± 25.2%; CI = 65.6–80.3)
SODOExaminer 1 (post-training)71.5% (± 19.0%; CI = 66.5–76.4)91.8% (± 9.6%; CI = 88.5–93.4)57.6% (± 11.4%; CI = 54.0–59.9)
Examiner 2 (post-training)75.2% (± 21.5%; CI = 69.4–80.5)94.5% (± 7.8%; CI = 91.2–96.7)57.3% (± 13.4%; CI = 53.5–60.4)
retention93.0% (± 12.5%; CI = 89.7–96.2)93.5% (± 10.7%; CI = 90.2–95.7)69.7% (± 25.3%; CI = 62.4–75.5)
p-valueExaminer 1 (post-training)p < .003p < .011p < .756
Examiner 2 (post-training)p < .001p < .033p < .631
retentionp < .596p < .057p < .322