ArticleBMC medical education2024
Simulation-based assessment of upper abdominal ultrasound skills.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Teaching Medical Students Rapid Ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH): learning outcomes and clinical performance in a proof-of-concept study.BMC medical education · 2024Observational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound is a safe and effective diagnostic tool used within several specialties. However, the quality of ultrasound scans relies on sufficiently skilled clinician operators. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of automated assessments of upper abdominal ultrasound skills using an ultrasound simulator.
methodsTwenty five novices and five experts were recruited, all of whom completed an assessment program for the evaluation of upper abdominal ultrasound skills on a virtual reality simulator. The program included five modules that assessed different organ systems using automated simulator metrics. We used Messick's framework to explore the validity evidence of these simulator metrics to determine the contents of a final simulator test. We used the contrasting groups method to establish a pass/fail level for the final simulator test.
resultsThirty seven out of 60 metrics were able to discriminate between novices and experts (p < 0.05). The median simulator score of the final simulator test including the metrics with validity evidence was 26.68% (range: 8.1-40.5%) for novices and 85.1% (range: 56.8-91.9%) for experts. The internal structure was assessed by Cronbach alpha (0.93) and intraclass correlation coefficient (0.89). The pass/fail level was determined to be 50.9%. This pass/fail criterion found no passing novices or failing experts.
conclusionsThis study collected validity evidence for simulation-based assessment of upper abdominal ultrasound examinations, which is the first step toward competency-based training. Future studies may examine how competency-based training in the simulated setting translates into improvements in clinical performances.
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.