General data of subjects
There were 34 residents in Group A, including 19 males and 15 females with an average age of 26.4 ± 1.6 years; there were 30 residents in Group B, including 18 males and 12 females with an average age of 25.8 ± 1.5 years. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of sex, age, education, pre-training otological work time and scores of basic theory (Table 2). Each otological training period was 6 months, and the middle stage of training was 3 months. Senior attending otologists and deputy chief otologists served as teachers.
Table 2. Characteristics of subjects in Groups A and B
Item
|
Group A (n=34)
|
Group B (n=30)
|
t value
|
P value
|
Gender
Male
Female
Age (Yrs.)
Education
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Doctor
Pre-training otological working time (practitioners)
0 year
0~1 year
>1 year
Pre-training scores of basic theory of otology (points)
|
19(55.9%)
15(44.1%)
26.4±1.6
11(32.4%)
20(58.8%)
3(8.8%)
26(76.5%)
6(17.6%)
2(5.9%)
65.4±5.2
|
18(60.0%)
12(40.0%)
25.8±1.5
10(33.3%)
18(60.0%)
2(6.7%)
23(76.7%)
5(16.7%)
2(6.7%)
64.8±6.5
|
0.11
1.54
Fisher
Fisher
0.41
|
0.73*
0.13
0.95**
0.99**
0.68
|
Note: * using χ2 test; ** using Fisher test.
Scores of identification proficiency of middle and inner ear structure CT
After an otological training period, the identification proficiency of the two groups for the middle and inner ear structure in temporal CT was greatly improved. Notably, there was no significant difference in the proficiency scores between the two groups before training (P > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in the proficiency scores between the two groups after training, of which the identification proficiency for each structure of middle and inner ear in CT in Group A was better than that in Group B (P < 0.05), indicating that the mixed teaching with reading list could help students improve their ability to identify the anatomical structure in temporal CT (Table 3).
Table 3. Identification proficiency of middle and inner ear structure CT before and after training - VAS scores (points,
±ѕ )
Proficiency Type
|
Group A (n=34)
|
Group B (n=30)
|
P value
|
Temporal CT reading
Before training
After training
Overall middle and inner ear structure
Before training
After training
Ossicle structure
Before training
After training
Vestibular window and round window
Before training
After training
Facial nerve and bone canal
Before training
After training
Hypotympanum, tympanic opening of auditory tube
Before training
After training
Scute, tympanic sinus, facial nerve recess
Before training
After training
Cochlea, vestibule, semicircular canal
Before training
After training
Sigmoid sinus, bulb of jugular vein, carotid canal
Before training
After training
Middle cranial fossa, posterior cranial fossa, vestibular aqueduct
Before training
After training
|
3.8±0.6
7.5±0.5
3.4±0.5
7.9±0.6
4.1±0.5
8.6±0.5
2.7±0.6
8.1±0.5
3.1±0.6
6.8±0.7
4.3±0.5
8.7±0.5
4.5±0.5
7.8±0.4
2.2±0.6
6.4±0.5
3.1±0.5
6.8±0.6
2.6±0.5
7.3±0.4
|
3.6±0.6
6.2±0.7
3.6±0.4
6.4±0.6
3.9±0.6
7.1±0.4
2.5±0.5
7.1±0.6
3.3±0.4
5.5±0.6
4.4±0.6
7.8±0.6
4.3±0.6
5.6±0.6
2.3±0.5
5.1±0.4
2.9±0.5
5.3±0.4
2.7±0.4
5.8±0.5
|
0.19
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
0.15
<0.01
0.16
<0.01
0.13
<0.01
0.47
<0.01
0.15
<0.01
0.48
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
0.38
<0.01
|
Scores of temporal CT reading test
The scores of reading in the two groups showed escalation trend in the initial and middle stage and at the end of the training (P < 0.01), indicating that both teaching modes could promote the students’ identification of temporal CT. However, it is worth noting that there was no significant difference in the scores of temporal CT reading test between the two groups in the early and middle stages of the training; at the end of the training, there was a difference between the two groups: the scores (84.2 ± 7.1 points) of Group A were significantly better than those (76.2 ± 6.4 point) of Group B (t = 4.71, P < 0.01). The results further demonstrated that the scores of Group A were better than those of Group B due to the application of teaching mode with reading list after the middle stage of the training (Tables 4 - 6).
Table 4. Scores of CT reading test in two groups during training (point,
±ѕ )
Group
|
Cases
|
Initial Stage
|
Middle Stage
|
Completion
|
GROUP A
GROUP B
|
34
30
|
55.4±5.3
56.2±6.5
|
71.4±6.2
72.3±5.5
|
84.2±7.1
76.2±6.4
|
t value
P value
|
---
---
|
-0.54
0.59
|
-0.61
0.54
|
4.71
<0.01
|


Results of questionnaire
In this study, a total of 64 questionnaires were sent out, a total of 64 effective questionnaires were recovered, and the recovery rate of effective questionnaires was 100%. The results of questionnaires showed that the evaluation in the learning interest, prediction ability of surgical risk, prevention of missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis risk, doctor-patient communication ability, standard organization of reading, self-confidence in reading, self-learning of reading, and satisfaction degree with reading teaching methods in Group A were better than those in Group B (P < 0.05), indicating that the use of reading list achieved good teaching effect (Table 7).
Table 7 Evaluation of two teaching modes of temporal CT reading by students
Evaluation Item
|
GROUP A (n=34)
|
GROUP B (n=30)
|
Chi-square value
|
Pvalue
|
Question 1 Beneficial to increasing interest in learning
1
2
3
Question 2. Beneficial to improving prediction ability of surgical risk
1
2
3
Question 3 Beneficial to avoiding missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis
1
2
3
Question 4. Beneficial to improving doctor-patient communication skills
1
2
3
Question 5 Beneficial to improving standard organization of CT reading
1
2
3
Question 6 Beneficial to improving self-confidence in CT reading
1
2
3
Question 7 Beneficial to self-learning of CT reading
1
2
3
Question 8 Satisfaction with teaching mode
1
2
3
|
3(8.8%)
5(14.7%)
26(76.5%)
1(2.9%)
5(14.7%)
28(82.4%)
1(2.9%)
8(23.5%)
25(73.5%)
4(11.8%)
7(20.6%)
23(67.6%)
0(0%)
7(20.6%)
27(79.4%)
2(5.9%)
6(17.6%)
26(76.5%)
3(8.8%)
9(26.5%)
22(64.7%)
0(0%)
4(11.8%)
30(88.2%)
|
7(23.3%)
10(33.3%)
13(43.3%)
4 (13.3%)
10(33.3%)
16(53.3%)
7(23.3%)
10(33.3%)
13(43.3%)
7(23.3%)
11(36.7%)
12(40.0%)
5(16.7%)
10(33.3%)
15(50.0%)
7(23.3%)
11(36.7%)
12(40.0%)
7(23.3%)
12(40.0%)
11(36.7%)
6(20.0%)
6(20.0%)
18(60.0%)
|
7.03
6.40
7.40
4.61
7.28
9.04
5.38
7.68
|
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
|