Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34487262›Full record

ArticleThe ultrasound journal2021

Comparison of in-person versus tele-ultrasound point-of-care ultrasound training during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nilam J Soni, Jeremy S Boyd, Gregory Mints, Kevin C Proud, Trevor P Jensen, Gigi Liu, Benji K Mathews, Christopher K Schott, Linda Kurian, Charles M LoPresti and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ultrasound journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Hands-on Distance Simulation of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Virtual Learning in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
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

18 authors.

Nilam J SoniSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA. sonin@uthscsa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8460-0323
Jeremy S BoydDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Veterans Affairs - Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA.
Gregory MintsDivision of Hospital Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Kevin C ProudSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Trevor P JensenDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center at Parnassus, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gigi LiuDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Benji K MathewsDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Regions Hospital, HealthPartners, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Christopher K SchottDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Veterans Affairs of Pittsburgh Health Care System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Linda KurianDivision of Hospital Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Charles M LoPrestiLouis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Phil AndrusDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Robert NathansonSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Natalie SmithSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Elizabeth K HaroSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Michael J MaderSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Jacqueline PughDepartment of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Marcos I RestrepoSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Brian P LucasWhite River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, VT, USA.

Funding

Short-term Clinical Deterioration After Acute Pulmonary EmbolismR01HS025979 · AHRQ · CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI WEEKES, ANTHONY J · 2018 to 2020
$1.0M
Evaluation of Implementation of a National Point-of-care Ultrasound Training ProgramI50HX002263 · VA · SOUTH TEXAS VETERANS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM · PI SONI, NILAM · 2020 to 2021
–
agency for healthcare research and quality 1R01HS025979-01A1AHRQ HHS R01 HS025979CDC HHS 75D301-20-C-07637HSRD VA I50 HX002263quality enhancement research initiative HX002263-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of training is currently the most common barrier to implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use in clinical practice, and in-person POCUS continuing medical education (CME) courses have been paramount in improving this training gap. Due to travel restrictions and physical distancing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, most in-person POCUS training courses were cancelled. Though tele-ultrasound technology has existed for several years, use of tele-ultrasound technology to deliver hands-on training during a POCUS CME course has not been previously described.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study comparing educational outcomes, course evaluations, and learner and faculty feedback from in-person versus tele-ultrasound POCUS courses. The same POCUS educational curriculum was delivered to learners by the two course formats. Data from the most recent pre-pandemic in-person course were compared to tele-ultrasound courses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

resultsPre- and post-course knowledge test scores of learners from the in-person (n = 88) and tele-ultrasound course (n = 52) were compared. Though mean pre-course knowledge test scores were higher among learners of the tele-ultrasound versus in-person course (78% vs. 71%; p = 0.001), there was no significant difference in the post-course test scores between learners of the two course formats (89% vs. 87%; p = 0.069). Both learners and faculty rated the tele-ultrasound course highly (4.6-5.0 on a 5-point scale) for effectiveness of virtual lectures, tele-ultrasound hands-on scanning sessions, and course administration. Faculty generally expressed less satisfaction with their ability to engage with learners, troubleshoot image acquisition, and provide feedback during the tele-ultrasound course but felt learners completed the tele-ultrasound course with a better basic POCUS skillset.

conclusionsCompared to a traditional in-person course, tele-ultrasound POCUS CME courses appeared to be as effective for improving POCUS knowledge post-course and fulfilling learning objectives. Our findings can serve as a roadmap for educators seeking guidance on development of a tele-ultrasound POCUS training course whose demand will likely persist beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Identifiers

PMID34487262
PMCPMC8419826

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.