Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35382705›Full record

SynthesisMedical education online2022

Evaluation of antenatal Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) training: a systematic review.

Amber Bidner, Eva Bezak, Nayana Parange

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical education online, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. A retrospective review of screening for HIV, syphilis and anaemia on first antenatal care visits at a midwife-run obstetric unit in South Africa.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amber BidnerDepartment of Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7491-517X
Eva BezakDepartment of Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Nayana ParangeDepartment of Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0069-1932
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is limited access to life-saving antenatal ultrasound in rural and low-resource settings largely due to shortages in skilled staff. Studies have shown healthcare practitioners can be upskilled in PoCUS through focused training, offering a viable solution to this deficit. However, standards for training and competency assessment are unclear and regulation surrounding practice is lacking. We aimed to review published literature examining antenatal PoCUS training programs, comparing teaching approaches and study methodologies.

methodsA search of electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE and Google Scholar was conducted. Original research articles evaluating antenatal PoCUS training of healthcare professionals worldwide were identified for analysis. Articles with limited detail on the PoCUS training intervention and those describing comprehensive diagnostic training programs were excluded. Evaluations were compared against the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Framework (KEF).

resultsTwenty-seven studies were included from an initial search result of 484 articles. There was considerable heterogeneity between the PoCUS training programs described. Course duration ranged from 3 hours to 2 years, with 11 of the 27 studies delivering obstetric-exclusive content. 44% trained multidisciplinary groups of health professionals. Long-term follow-up training and skills assessments were lacking in over half of the reviewed studies. Study quality and reporting detail varied, but overall beneficial outcomes were reported with 3/4s of the studies reaching upper KEF levels 3 and 4.

conclusionPoCUS performed by upskilled healthcare professionals offers an attractive solution to the problem of inequitable access to antenatal ultrasound. A review of available literature highlighted a paucity of comparable high-quality studies needed to establish a stronger evidence base for antenatal PoCUS, and a need to standardise training and competency assessment. This review may inform educators, researchers and policy-makers on existing training formats and methodologies to assist in establishing best practice antenatal PoCUS training methods for safe service delivery by remote healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPoint-of-Care SystemsFemaleHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchUltrasonographyantenatalcontinuing professional developmentlow-resource settingMedical educationobstetricsPoint-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS)remoteruraltraining

Identifiers

PMID35382705
PMCPMC8986272
OpenAlexW4223476001

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.