Trial reportMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2018
[Current status of teaching in lung ultrasound : Query of knowledge, utilization, need, and preferred teaching method].
Trial report in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Echoscopy in scanning abdominal diseases in a critical care setting.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) is a point-of-care technique which can quickly identify or rule out pathological findings. To date, it is unclear if knowledge about the use of LUS is readily available.
objectivesWe aimed to identify how much knowledge about the use of LUS is present, if there is a need for teaching in LUS, as well as the preferred teaching method in LUS. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 54 participants from two university departments of anesthesiology were randomized into the groups Online, Classroom, and Control. The Online group was taught by videos, the Classroom group by a traditional lecture with hands-on training, and the Control group was not taught at all. We conducted a pre- and posttest as well as a retention test 4 weeks after the end of the study by means of a survey (comparison with Mann-Whitney U test or t‑test, respectively, with p < 0.05 considered to be significant).
resultsLUS is used "rarely" or "never", and mainly if there is a suspicion for pleural effusion (41.3%). There is a need for LUS (Online: 21.7%; Classroom: 60.9%; Control: 62.5%, p < 0.05). Hybrid teaching consisting of classroom-based and online-based teaching is preferred by the users (Online: 52.2%; Classroom: 56.5%; Control: 62.5%). At the end of the study, 32.6% of the participants of the intervention groups had used LUS in the diagnosis of a pneumothorax. Of the participants, 93.5% planned to use LUS more often in the future.
conclusionsLUS is rarely used. There is a considerable need for teaching of LUS. Internet-based teaching and traditional lectures are considered equal. Both teaching methods improve the knowledge about LUS and lead to increased use of LUS in daily practice. The participants prefer hybrid teaching incorporating both teaching methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28497206What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.