Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35465598›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ultrasound

Indigenously Developed Ultrasound Phantom Model versus a Commercially Available Training Model: Randomized Double-blinded Study to Assess Its Utility to Teach Ultrasound Guided Vascular Access in a Controlled Setting.

Siju V Abraham, Ronald Jaison Melit, S Vimal Krishnan, Tijo George, Meenhas Oravil Kunhahamed, C K Kassyap, Sanjeev Bhoi, Tej Prakash Sinha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A New Wave of Ultrasound Phantoms Using Real Fixed Organs: Birth of the Danny Phantom.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Siju V AbrahamDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Jubilee Mission Hospital, Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
Ronald Jaison MelitDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Klinikum Herford, Schwarzenmoorstraße, Herford, Germany.
S Vimal KrishnanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Tijo GeorgeAchutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Meenhas Oravil KunhahamedDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Daya General Hospital Limited, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
C K KassyapDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Jubilee Mission Hospital, Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
Sanjeev BhoiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, AIIMS Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center, New Delhi, India.
Tej Prakash SinhaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, AIIMS Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The commercially available training phantoms being expensive, homemade models are popular surrogates for training. We intended to study how comparable our indigenously developed ultrasound phantom (IDUP) was with the commercially available model for ultrasound-guided vascular access (USGVA) training. We also assessed the change in confidence among trainees using a 21-h standardized program. Methods: A prospective randomized double-blinded, parallel design study, with sequential allocation, was done after a standardized point of care ultrasound training course. Over three consecutive courses, 48 trainees volunteered to take part in the study. The models (IDUP and commercial phantom) were allocated as model A and model B. In each course, participants were also allotted sequentially to either perform in-plane or out of plane approach first, at the testing stations. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pretest with posttest scores. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between IDUP and commercial phantom with respect to the resemblance to human tissue on tactile feedback and ease to perform the procedure. However, both models did not show a statistically significant difference in terms of ease of use, visual resemblance to human tissue, needle visualization, and artifacts on ultrasonography display. A significant change in the confidence levels of participants was seen postcourse. Conclusion: IDUP was a comparable alternative to the commercial model for USGVA training in a resource-limited setting. A 21-h standardized training program improved the trainee's confidence in performing and teaching USGVA.

Indexed as

Educationsimulationultrasoundvascular access

Identifiers

PMID35465598
PMCPMC9030346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.