Effectiveness of Test-Enhanced Learning in Continuing Health Sciences Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghan M. McConnell ◽  
Khalid Azzam ◽  
Ted Xenodemetropoulos ◽  
Akbar Panju
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Sciences Education ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Test Enhanced Learning ◽  
Enhanced Learning

scholarly journals Acceptance of technology-enhanced learning for a theoretical radiological science course: a randomized controlled trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emeka Nkenke ◽  
Elefterios Vairaktaris ◽  
Anne Bauersachs ◽  
Stephan Eitner ◽  
Alexander Budach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Technology Enhanced Learning ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Enhanced Learning

scholarly journals Premedication with Dexamethasone and Propofol to Control Fentanyl-Induced Cough

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 962-964
Author(s):  
Muhammad Faisal Farooq ◽  
Haider Ali Khan ◽  
Vijai Kumar ◽  
Arsalan Jamil ◽  
Shakil Malik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Main Outcome Measure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Surgical Icu ◽  
Elective Surgical Procedure ◽  
Group D

Background: Fentanyl-induced cough is a common difficulty encountered at induction of anesthesia. Various interventions both pharmacological and non-pharmacological have been used to prevent this side effect including dexamethasone and propofol. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of dexamethasone and propofol to prevent fentanyl-induced cough at the induction of general anesthesia. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Surgical ICU & Pain Management, Dow University of Health Sciences and Civil Hospital Karachi from 16th September 2011 to 15th March, 2012. Methodology: One hundred patients who underwent elective surgical procedure were selected. Patients were randomized in two groups of 50 patients each; Group D was given intravenous dexamethasone; whereas patients of group P received intravenous propofol as the premedication before induction. The main outcome measure was effectiveness of both drugs to prevent fentanyl-induced cough. Results: Majority of patients (40%) were between 20-30 years of age group with mean age was 35.80±10.14 years. Males were more than females. Intravenous dexamethasone was significantly effective (90%) than intravenous propofol (70%) [p=0.012]. Conclusion: Intravenous dexamethasone is effective in reducing fentanyl-induced cough in comparison to propofol. Keywords: Dexamethasone, Propofol, Fentanyl-induced cough (FIC)

scholarly journals Randomized controlled trial comparing cefazolin with ceftriaxone in perioperative prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgeries

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-43
Author(s):  
Rosan Prasad Shah Kalawar ◽  
BP Shrestha ◽  
GP Khanal ◽  
P Chaudhary ◽  
R Rijal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Perioperative Prophylaxis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Surgical site infection is one of the most dreaded complications faced by an orthopaedic surgeon. In spite of cefazolin being recommended as perioperative antibiotic, many orthopaedic surgeons continue to use ceftriaxone as perioperative antibiotic.Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cefazolin and ceftriaxone as perioperative prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of surgical site infection in clean elective orthopaedic surgeries.Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 197 patients undergoing clean elective orthopaedic surgeries. The patients were divided into two groups. One group received intravenous prophylactic antibiotics cefazolin and gentamicin and the other group received ceftriaxone and gentamicin in standard doses for 48 hours. Both groups were followed by oral Cephadroxyl for 7 days. The patients were followed up for three months.Results: There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection among the two groups.Conclusion: We conclude that there is no difference in the effectiveness of prevention of surgical site infection between cefazolin and ceftriaxone.Journal of BP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018, page: 36-43

Treatment Fidelity Procedures for an Aphasia Intervention Within a Randomized Controlled Trial: Design, Feasibility, and Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1S) ◽  
pp. 412-424
Author(s):  
Elissa L. Conlon ◽  
Emily J. Braun ◽  
Edna M. Babbitt ◽  
Leora R. Cherney
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Treatment Fidelity ◽  
Protocol Adherence ◽  
Study Condition ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Aphasia Therapy ◽  
Percent Accuracy ◽  
Over Time

Purpose This study reports on the treatment fidelity procedures implemented during a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing intensive and distributed comprehensive aphasia therapy. Specifically, the results of 1 treatment, verb network strengthening treatment (VNeST), are examined. Method Eight participants were recruited for each of 7 consecutive cohorts for a total of 56 participants. Participants completed 60 hr of aphasia therapy, including 15 hr of VNeST. Two experienced speech-language pathologists delivered the treatment. To promote treatment fidelity, the study team developed a detailed manual of procedures and fidelity checklists, completed role plays to standardize treatment administration, and video-recorded all treatment sessions for review. To assess protocol adherence during treatment delivery, trained research assistants not involved in the treatment reviewed video recordings of a subset of randomly selected VNeST treatment sessions and completed the fidelity checklists. This process was completed for 32 participants representing 2 early cohorts and 2 later cohorts, which allowed for measurement of protocol adherence over time. Percent accuracy of protocol adherence was calculated across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition (intensive vs. distributed therapy). Results The fidelity procedures were sufficient to promote and verify a high level of adherence to the treatment protocol across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition. Conclusion Treatment fidelity strategies and monitoring are feasible when incorporated into the study design. Treatment fidelity monitoring should be completed at regular intervals during the course of a study to ensure that high levels of protocol adherence are maintained over time and across conditions.

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4464-4482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽  
Wesley Allen ◽  
Janaki Torrence ◽  
Stephen E. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confrontation Naming ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

Principles for School-Age Language Intervention: Insights from a Randomized Controlled Trial

ASHA Leader ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Gillam ◽  
Diane Frome Loeb
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Language Intervention ◽  
School Age ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Baclofen versus clonidine in the treatment of opiates withdrawal, side-effects aspect: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Ahmadi-Abhari ◽  
S. Akhondzadeh ◽  
S. M. Assadi ◽  
O. L. Shabestari ◽  
Z. M. Farzanehgan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document