Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38177897›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Validating the virtual: a deep dive into ultrasound simulator metrics in otorhinolaryngology.

Anne Line Risgaard, Iben Bang Andersen, Mikkel Lønborg Friis, Martin Grønnebæk Tolsgaard, Christian Sander Danstrup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

5 authors.

Anne Line Risgaard *NordSim, Centre for Skills Training and Simulation, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5262-2936
Iben Bang Andersen *NordSim, Centre for Skills Training and Simulation, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. iben.a@rn.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6652-5017
Mikkel Lønborg FriisNordSim, Centre for Skills Training and Simulation, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0535-3357
Martin Grønnebæk TolsgaardCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES) Rigshospitalet and Center for Fetal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9197-5564
Christian Sander DanstrupDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5675-5769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to assess the validity of simulation-based assessment of ultrasound skills for thyroid ultrasound.

methodsThe study collected validity evidence for simulation-based ultrasound assessment of thyroid ultrasound skills. Experts (n = 8) and novices (n = 21) completed a test containing two tasks and four cases on a virtual reality ultrasound simulator (U/S Mentor's Neck Ultrasound Module). Validity evidence was collected and structured according to Messick's validity framework. The assessments being evaluated included built-in simulator metrics and expert-based evaluations using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) scale.

resultsOut of 64 built-in simulator metrics, 9 (14.1%) exhibited validity evidence. The internal consistency of these metrics was strong (Cronbach's α = 0.805) with high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.911). Novices achieved an average score of 41.9% (SD = 24.3) of the maximum, contrasting with experts at 81.9% (SD = 16.7). Time comparisons indicated minor differences between experts (median: 359 s) and novices (median: 376.5 s). All OSAUS items differed significantly between the two groups. The correlation between correctly entered clinical findings and the OSAUS scores was 0.748 (p < 0.001). The correlation between correctly entered clinical findings and the metric scores was 0.801 (p < 0.001).

conclusionWhile simulation-based training is promising, only 14% of built-in simulator metrics could discriminate between novices and ultrasound experts. Already-established competency frameworks such as OSAUS provided strong validity evidence for the assessment of otorhinolaryngology ultrasound competence.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceVirtual RealityComputer SimulationHumansReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonographyAssessment of learningDiagnostic accuracyHead and neck ultrasoundSimulation-based medical educationUltrasonographyValidity evidence

Identifiers

PMID38177897
PMCPMC10942893

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.