ArticleDer Anaesthesist2020
Efficacy of a certified modular ultrasound curriculum.
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Introductory Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum for an Anesthesiology Residency Program.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, ultrasound (US) has become more incorporated into anesthesia and intensive care medicine. The German Anesthesia Society established a modular curriculum to teach US skills. Until now, the efficacy of this modular curriculum has not been validated.
objectiveThe main objective of this study was to determine whether there is an increase of knowledge and of psychomotor skills for the trainees in this curriculum. MATERIAL AND
methodsAfter ethical committee approval, 41 anesthesia physicians were enrolled. To determine the increase of knowledge and of practical skills theoretical and practical tests performed were evaluated before and after two different US courses.
resultsComparing before and after course tests, the participants showed significant improvement in theoretical multiple choice tests (p = 0.008). Regarding psychomotor skills following course 1, the trainees improved significantly in the time needed to perform the two practical tests (p = 0.03), but not in the performance of the test. Better needle visualization during simulated US-guided vessel puncture (p = 0.52) and better identification of the anatomical structures in the axillary region (p = 0.56) could not be achieved.
conclusionThis study shows that although this US course curriculum has positively enhanced the trainees' theoretical knowledge of US practice, it does not enhance the practical application of that theoretical knowledge. To improve this curriculum, a supervised clinically practical training should follow the course.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.