ArticleThe ultrasound journal2024
Change in economy of ultrasound probe motion among general medicine trainees.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-care ultrasound training using near-peer training and remote Supervision: A pilot randomized controlled trial.The ultrasound journal · 2026Article
- Computer-Based Competency Assessment in Point-Of-Care Ultrasound: A Systematic Review.AEM education and training · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo observe change in economy of 9 ultrasound probe movement metrics among internal medicine trainees during a 5-day training course in cardiac point of care ultrasound (POCUS).
methodsWe used a novel probe tracking device to record nine features of ultrasound probe movement, while trainees and experts optimized ultrasound clips on the same volunteer patients. These features included translational movements, gyroscopic movements (titling, rocking, and rotation), smoothness, total path length, and scanning time. We determined the adjusted difference between each trainee's movements and the mean value of the experts' movements for each patient. We then used a mixed effects model to trend average the adjusted differences between trainees and experts throughout the 5 days of the course.
resultsFifteen trainees were enrolled. Three echocardiographer technicians and the course director served as experts. Across 16 unique patients, 294 ultrasound clips were acquired. For all 9 movements, the adjusted difference between trainees and experts narrowed day-to-day (p value < 0.05), suggesting ongoing improvement during training. By the last day of the course, there were no statistically significant differences between trainees and experts in translational movement, gyroscopic movement, smoothness, or total path length; yet on average trainees took 28 s (95% CI [14.7-40.3] seconds) more to acquire a clip.
conclusionsWe detected improved ultrasound probe motion economy among internal medicine trainees during a 5-day training course in cardiac POCUS using an inexpensive probe tracking device. Objectively quantifying probe motion economy may help assess a trainee's level of proficiency in this skill and individualize their POCUS training.
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.