ArticleAEM education and training2021
Development of a novel pediatric point-of-care ultrasound question bank using a modified Delphi process.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content in Medical Examinations.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Development of a novel pediatric point-of-care ultrasound question bank using a modified Delphi process.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMeasuring pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellow competency in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is important for ensuring adequate training and performance. Assessment may include direct observation, image review, quality assessment, and written examination. The purpose of this study was to develop a pediatric POCUS question bank that could subsequently be used as a POCUS assessment for graduating PEM fellows.
methodsWe organized a 10-person question writing group (QWG). Eight hold expertise in POCUS and two hold expertise in medical education. Members of the QWG created questions within four domains: interpretation/diagnosis (50% of questions), anatomy (30%), physics (10%), and pitfalls (10%). POCUS faculty ascertained content validity and the medical education faculty revised questions for syntax and readability. In 2016, we recruited 31 pediatric POCUS experts. The majority were members of the P2 Network, an international group of experts and leaders in PEM POCUS, to participate in three iterative rounds of a modified Delphi process to review, revise, and establish consensus on the question bank.
resultsThirty-one pediatric POCUS experts participated in the three rounds of the modified Delphi process and evaluated 437 questions developed by the expert panel. Forty-nine percent (
conclusionWe developed a 393-question bank to aid in the assessment of PEM POCUS competency. Future work includes piloting the questions with PEM fellows to evaluate the response process and implementing the assessment tool to establish a minimum passing score.
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.