ArticleJournal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Comparison of low-cost phantoms for ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy training.
Article in Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-cost gelatin phantom for ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy training: a pictorial essay.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
- SonoGuar: A Self-healing Hydrogel for Higher Fidelity Ultrasound-guided Procedure Training.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Ensuring Quality in Interventional Cytopathology.Acta cytologica · 2026Review
- Simulation-based training for fascial plane blocks: A scoping review mapped to the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Review
- Homemade, low-cost ultrasound phantoms for ultrasound-guided procedures: a survey-based comparative analysis.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Article
- Exploring the dynamics of ultrasound training in medical education: current trends, debates, and approaches to didactics and hands-on learning.BMC medical education · 2024Review
- Comparison of state-of-the-art biopsy systems for ultrasound-guided breast biopsy using a chicken breast phantom.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Article
- 3D-printed neck phantoms with detailed anatomy for ultrasound-guided procedure and device testing.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Fun with electricity: A novel ballistics gelatin model with LED tracking for ultrasound needle guidance.AEM education and training · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPhantoms and simulators are widely accepted methods to gain valuable experience and confidence for inexperienced trainees prior to seeing their patient and for refining their skills. A phantom model that is durable, simple, and inexpensive to produce and use would be ideal to train practitioners in ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (USFNA) technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, we systematically compared several low-cost phantom models including gelatin, extra firm tofu, canned cooked pork, ballistics gel, and chicken breast for their haptic properties, echogenicity, teaching utility, and overall performance based on a Likert scale (1-5; 5 = best). Nine cytopathologists and cytopathology fellows who perform FNA regularly evaluated these models and completed the survey.
resultsThe gelatin phantom, with a gelatin to water ratio of 1:8 by weight, was found to be the best for USFNA practice and overall performance, followed by the 1:10 gelatin phantom. Tofu and chicken breast phantoms were also good low-cost alternatives that needed only a few minutes of total preparation time.
conclusionsLow-cost, homemade phantoms can serve as excellent alternatives to commercial phantoms for practicing and teaching USFNA.
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.