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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Friend or Foe? Flipped Classroom for Undergraduate Electrocardiogram Learning: a Randomized Controlled Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-0881-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zeng Rui, Xiang Lian-rui, Yue Rong-zheng, Zeng Jing, Wan Xue-hong, Zuo Chuan |
| Abstract |
Interpreting an electrocardiogram (ECG) is not only one of the most important parts of clinical diagnostics but also one of the most difficult topics to teach and learn. In order to enable medical students to master ECG interpretation skills in a limited teaching period, the flipped teaching method has been recommended by previous research to improve teaching effect on undergraduate ECG learning. A randomized controlled trial for ECG learning was conducted, involving 181 junior-year medical undergraduates using a flipped classroom as an experimental intervention, compared with Lecture-Based Learning (LBL) as a control group. All participants took an examination one week after the intervention by analysing 20 ECGs from actual clinical cases and submitting their ECG reports. A self-administered questionnaire was also used to evaluate the students' attitudes, total learning time, and conditions under each teaching method. The students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group (8.72 ± 1.01 vs 8.03 ± 1.01, t = 4.549, P = 0.000) on ECG interpretation. The vast majority of the students in the flipped classroom group held positive attitudes toward the flipped classroom method and also supported LBL. There was no significant difference (4.07 ± 0.96 vs 4.16 ± 0.89, Z = - 0.948, P = 0.343) between the groups. Prior to class, the students in the flipped class group devoted significantly more time than those in the control group (42.33 ± 22.19 vs 30.55 ± 10.15, t = 4.586, P = 0.000), whereas after class, the time spent by the two groups were not significantly different (56.50 ± 46.80 vs 54.62 ± 31.77, t = 0.317, P = 0.752). Flipped classroom teaching can improve medical students' interest in learning and their self-learning abilities. It is an effective teaching model that needs to be further studied and promoted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 27% |
| Spain | 3 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 218 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 23 | 10% |
| Researcher | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 46 | 21% |
| Unknown | 66 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 17% |
| Unknown | 77 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,646,771
of 23,989,432 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#428
of 3,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,950
of 311,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,989,432 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 311,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.