ArticleAEM education and training2021
Pediatric emergency medicine fellowship point-of-care ultrasound training in 2020.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Low-Cost Simulation Model for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Intussusception Practice.Cureus · 2024Article
- Pediatric emergency medicine fellowship point-of-care ultrasound training in 2020.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Increasing Point-of-care Ultrasound Scanning by Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellows: A Quality Improvement Initiative.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective was to survey pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) leaders and fellows regarding point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training in PEM fellowship programs, including teaching methods, training requirements, and applications taught. Secondary objectives were to compare fellows' and program leaders' perceptions of fellow POCUS competency and training barriers.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional survey of U.S. PEM fellows and fellowship program leaders of the 78 fellowship programs using two online group-specific surveys exploring five domains: program demographics; training strategies and requirements; perceived competency; barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of POCUS training; and POCUS satisfaction.
resultsEighty-three percent (65/78) of programs and 53% (298/558) of fellows responded. All participating PEM fellowship programs included POCUS training in their curriculum. Among the 65 programs, 97% of programs and 92% of programs utilized didactics and supervised scanning shifts as educational techniques, respectively. Sixty percent of programs integrated numerical benchmarks and 49% of programs incorporated real-time, hands-on demonstration as training requirements. Of the 19 POCUS applications deemed in the literature as core requirements for fellows, at least 75% of the 298 fellows reported training in 13 of those applications. Although less than half of fellows endorsed competency for identifying intussusception, ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, and transvaginal pregnancy evaluation, a higher proportion of leaders reported fellows as competent for these applications (40% vs. 68%, p ≤ 0.001; 21% vs. 39%, p = 0.003; and 21% vs. 43%, p ≤ 0.001). Forty-six percent of fellows endorsed a lack of PEM POCUS evidence as a training barrier compared to 31% of leaders (p = 0.02), and 39% of leaders endorsed a lack of local financial support as a training barrier compared to 23% of fellows (p = 0.01).
conclusionsAlthough most PEM fellowship programs provide POCUS training, there is variation in content and requirements. Training does conform to many of the expert recommended guidelines; however, there are some discrepancies and perceived barriers to POCUS training remain.
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.