Trial reportBMC medical education2022
A prospective randomized study to compare standard versus intensive training strategies on long-term improvement in critical care ultrasonography proficiency.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heart and lung point-of-care ultrasonography tutoring in internal medicine: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Trial
- Methods for teaching postgraduate point-of-care ultrasonography: a systematic review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Point of care ultrasound knowledge attitudes and practices among emergency and ICU healthcare providers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A longitudinal blended learning curriculum for bedside ultrasound education in pulmonary and critical care fellowship.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Tele-education in point-of-care ultrasound training.The ultrasound journal · 2024Article
- [Interpretation of the clinical guideline for point-of-care ultrasonography in the neonatal intensive care unit in the United States].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical care ultrasonography (CCUS) has become a daily diagnostic tool for intensivists. While the effective training measures for ultrasound novices are discussed widely, the best curriculum for the novices to retain a long-term proficiency is yet to be determined.
methodsCritical care medicine fellows who underwent an introductory CCUS workshop were randomly allocated into the standard training (ST) or the intensive training (IT) group. The IT group received an 8-h training besides the standardized fellowship education that the ST group received. Participant improvement in CCUS proficiency tests (maximum score, 200) after a 6-month training intervention was compared between the groups. CCUS examinations performed in patient care were observed over 2 years.
resultsTwenty-one fellows were allocated into the ST (n = 10) or the IT (n = 11) group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the median (interquartile range [IQR]) improvement in CCUS proficiency tests between the ST group and the IT group: 18 (3.8-38) versus 31 (21-46) (P = .09). Median (IQR) test scores were significantly higher in postintervention than preintervention for both groups: ST, 103 (87-116) versus 124 (111-143) (P = .02), and IT, 100 (87-113) versus 143 (121-149) (P < .01). Participating fellows performed 226 examinations over the 2 years of observation.
conclusionsFellows improved their CCUS proficiency significantly after 6-month training intervention. However, an additional 8-h training did not provide further benefits.
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.