Randomised controlled trial to assess the difference of spinal anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia in hip replacement surgery

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martyn Parker
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e043444
Author(s):  
Martine Rostadmo ◽  
Siri Lunde Strømme ◽  
Magne Nylenna ◽  
Pal Gulbrandsen ◽  
Erlend Hem ◽  
...  

IntroductionEnglish is the lingua franca of science. How well doctors understand English is therefore crucial for their understanding of scientific articles. However, only 5% of the world’s population have English as their first language.MethodsObjectives: To compare doctors’ comprehension of a scientific article when read in their first language (Norwegian) versus their second language (English). Our hypothesis was that doctors reading the article in Norwegian would comprehend the content better than those reading it in English.Design: Parallel group randomised controlled trial. We randomised doctors to read the same clinical review article in either Norwegian or English, before completing a questionnaire about the content of the article.Setting: Conference in primary care medicine in Norway, 2018.Participants: 130 native Norwegian-speaking doctors, 71 women and 59 men. One participant withdrew before responding to the questionnaire and was excluded from the analyses.Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to read a review article in either Norwegian (n=64) or English (n=66). Reading time was limited to 7 min followed by 7 min to answer a questionnaire.Main outcome measures: Total score on questions related to the article content (potential range −9 to 20).ResultsDoctors who read the article in Norwegian had a mean total score of 10.40 (SD 3.96) compared with 9.08 (SD 3.47) among doctors who read the article in English, giving a mean difference of 1.32 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.62; p=0.046). Age was independently associated with total score, with decreased comprehension with increasing age.ConclusionThe difference in comprehension between the group who read in Norwegian and the group who read in English was statistically significant but modest, suggesting that the language gap in academia is possible to overcome.


BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 328 (7441) ◽  
pp. 673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Nick Black ◽  
Stephen Evans ◽  
James Carpenter ◽  
Fiona Godlee ◽  
...  

AbstractObjective To determine the effects of training on the quality of peer review.Design Single blind randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups receiving different types of training plus a control group.Setting and participants Reviewers at a general medical journal.Interventions Attendance at a training workshop or reception of a self taught training package focusing on what editors want from reviewers and how to critically appraise randomised controlled trials.Main outcome measures Quality of reviews of three manuscripts sent to reviewers at four to six monthly intervals, evaluated using the validated review quality instrument; number of deliberate major errors identified; time taken to review the manuscripts; proportion recommending rejection of the manuscripts.Results Reviewers in the self taught group scored higher in review quality after training than did the control group (score 2.85 v 2.56; difference 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.44; P = 0.001), but the difference was not of editorial significance and was not maintained in the long term. Both intervention groups identified significantly more major errors after training than did the control group (3.14 and 2.96 v 2.13; P < 0.001), and this remained significant after the reviewers' performance at baseline assessment was taken into account. The evidence for benefit of training was no longer apparent on further testing six months after the interventions. Training had no impact on the time taken to review the papers but was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending rejection (92% and 84% v 76%; P = 0.002).Conclusions Short training packages have only a slight impact on the quality of peer review. The value of longer interventions needs to be assessed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document