↓ Skip to main content

Randomized Controlled Study of a Remote Flipped Classroom Neuro-otology Curriculum

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 12,252)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
52 news outlets
twitter
28 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Randomized Controlled Study of a Remote Flipped Classroom Neuro-otology Curriculum
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00349
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederick Robert Carrick, Mahera Abdulrahman, Ahmed Hankir, Maksim Zayaruzny, Kinda Najem, Palita Lungchukiet, Roger A. Edwards

Abstract

Medical Education can be delivered in the traditional classroom or via novel technology including an online classroom. To test the hypothesis that learning in an online classroom would result in similar outcomes as learning in the traditional classroom when using a flipped classroom pedagogy. Randomized controlled trial. A total of 274 subjects enrolled in a Neuro-otology training program for non-Neuro-otologists of 25 h held over a 3-day period. Subjects were randomized into a "control" group attending a traditional classroom and a "trial" group of equal numbers participating in an online synchronous Internet streaming classroom using the Adobe Connect e-learning platform. Subjects were randomized into a "control" group attending a traditional classroom and a "treatment" group of equal numbers participating in an online synchronous Internet streaming classroom. Pre- and post-multiple choice examinations of VOR, Movement, Head Turns, Head Tremor, Neurodegeneration, Inferior Olivary Complex, Collateral Projections, Eye Movement Training, Visual Saccades, Head Saccades, Visual Impairment, Walking Speed, Neuroprotection, Autophagy, Hyperkinetic Movement, Eye and Head Stability, Oscilllatory Head Movements, Gaze Stability, Leaky Neural Integrator, Cervical Dystonia, INC and Head Tilts, Visual Pursuits, Optokinetic Stimulation, and Vestibular Rehabilitation. All candidates took a pretest examination of the subject material. The 2-9 h and 1-8 h sessions over three consecutive days were given live in the classroom and synchronously in the online classroom using the Adobe Connect e-learning platform. Subjects randomized to the online classroom attended the lectures in a location of their choice and viewed the sessions live on the Internet. A posttest examination was given to all candidates after completion of the course. Two sample unpaired t tests with equal variances were calculated for all pretests and posttests for all groups including gender differences. All 274 subjects demonstrated statistically significant learning by comparison of their pre- and posttest scores. There were no statistically significant differences in the test scores between the two groups of 137 subjects each (0.8%, 95% CI 85.45917-86.67952; P = 0.9195). A total of 101 males in the traditional classroom arm had statistically significant lower scores than 72 females (0.8%, 95% CI 84.65716-86.53096; P = 0.0377) but not in the online arm (0.8%, 95% CI 85.46172-87.23135; P = 0.2176) with a moderate effect size (Cohen's d = -0.407). The use of a synchronous online classroom in neuro-otology clinical training has demonstrated similar outcomes to the traditional classroom. The online classroom is a low cost and effective complement to medical specialty training in Neuro-Otology. The significant difference in outcomes between males and females who attended the traditional classroom suggests that women may do better than males in this learning environment, although the effect size is moderate. Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03079349.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 16 13%
Lecturer 12 10%
Other 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 431. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
#56,269
of 23,341,064 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#15
of 12,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,400
of 317,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#2
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,341,064 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.