Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30175392›Full record

ReviewCritical ultrasound journal2018

Lung ultrasound training: a systematic review of published literature in clinical lung ultrasound training.

Pia Iben Pietersen, Kristian Rørbæk Madsen, Ole Graumann, Lars Konge, Bjørn Ulrik Nielsen, Christian Borbjerg Laursen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical ultrasound journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Education in the placement of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheters: a systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Lung ultrasound in respiratory therapy: a global reflective survey.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Pia Iben PietersenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. pia.iben.pietersen3@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5718-3635
Kristian Rørbæk MadsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Ole GraumannInstitute for Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Lars KongeCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), University of Copenhagen and the Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bjørn Ulrik NielsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Christian Borbjerg LaursenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical lung ultrasound examinations are widely used in the primary assessment or monitoring of patients with dyspnoea or respiratory failure. Despite being increasingly implemented, there is no international consensus on education, assessment of competencies, and certification. Today, training is usually based on the concept of mastery learning, but is often unstructured and limited by bustle in a clinical daily life. The aim of the systematic review is to provide an overview of published learning studies in clinical lung ultrasound, and to collect evidence for future recommendations in lung ultrasound education and certification.

methodsAccording to PRISMA guidelines, three databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) were searched, and two reviewers examined the results for eligibility. Included publications were described and assessed for level of evidence and risk of bias according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Risk of Bias assessment.

resultsOf 7796 studies screened, 16 studies were included. Twelve pre- and post-test studies, three descriptive studies and one randomized controlled trial were identified. Seven studies included web-based or online modalities, while remaining used didactic or classroom-based lectures. Twelve (75%) studies provided hands-on sessions, and of these, 11 assessed participants' hands-on skills. None of the studies used validated neither written nor practical assessment. The highest level of evidence score was 2 (n = 1), remaining scored 4 (n = 15). Risk of bias was assessed high in 11 of 16 studies (68.75%).

conclusionAll educational methods proved increased theoretical and practical knowledge obtained at the ultrasound courses, but the included studies were substantial heterogeneous in setup, learning-, and assessment methods, and outcome measures. On behalf of current published studies, it was not possible to construct clear guidelines for the future education and certification in clinical lung ultrasound, but the use of different hands-on training facilities tends to contribute to different aspects of the learning process. This systematic review proves a lack of learning studies within this content, and research with validated theoretical and practical tests for assessment is desired.

Indexed as

Medical educationPoint-of-care ultrasoundPulmonary ultrasoundThoracic ultrasoundTraining

Identifiers

PMID30175392
PMCPMC6119680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.