ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2022
A comparison of handheld and standard ultrasound in Swiss medical students.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Commercially Available Clinical CMUT-Based Systems for Use in Medical Ultrasound Imaging: Products, Applications, and Performance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Phantom-based training of ultrasound-guided breast biopsy in medical education: a randomized controlled trial comparing handheld and high-end ultrasound.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Handheld Ultrasound Devices Used by Newly Certified Operators for Pneumonia in the Emergency Department-A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Handheld Ultrasound in Medical Education: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Narrative Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of ultrasound (US) within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology. There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education. This research aims to determine whether a handheld US device can provide a comparable primary learning experience to that of a standard US machine.
methodsOver two days of instruction, participants were taught and evaluated on core US fundamentals. The standard group received instruction on standard US machines, while the handheld group received instruction on handheld US devices. Participants completed a qualitative survey regarding their experience. Six hundred and four images were obtained and graded by two emergency medicine physicians.
resultsA total of 119 Swiss medical students were enrolled in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in the US assessment measurements, except for faster endpoint septal separation (EPSS) vascular setup time in the handheld group (
conclusionOur data suggest a handheld US machine can perform as well as a standard US machine as an educational tool despite sacrifices in image quality.
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.