ArticleBMC medical education2024
A feasibility study of a handmade ultrasound-guided phantom for paracentesis.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04792203 (The Evaluation of the Ultrasound-guided Clinical Procedure Simulation Curriculum), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
The Evaluation of the Ultrasound-guided Clinical Procedure Simulation Curriculum
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Learning Anatomy With Radiology: A Systematic Review.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Pooled it
- The Development and Evaluation of a Low-Cost, High-Fidelity Ultrasound-Guided Abdominal Paracentesis Simulator.Cureus · 2025Article
- Utility of Point-of-care Ultrasound in Clinical Care: A Narrative Review.Journal of medical ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based training is effective for ultrasound (US)-guided procedures. However, commercially developed simulators are costly. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of a hand-made phantom for US-guided paracentesis.
methodsWe described the recipe to prepare an agar phantom. We collected the US performance data of 50 novices, including 22 postgraduate-year (PGY) residents and 28 undergraduate-year (UGY) students, who used the phantom for training, as well as 12 emergency residents with prior US-guided experience. We obtained the feedback after using the phantom with the Likert 5-point scale. The data were presented with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) and analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
resultsWhile emergency residents demonstrated superior performance compared to trainees, all trainees exhibited acceptable proficiency (global rating of ≥ 3, 50/50 vs. 12/12, p = 1.000) and comparable needle steadiness [5 (5) vs. 5 (5), p = 0.223]. No significant difference in performance was observed between PGYs [5 (4-5)] and UGYs [5 (4-5), p = 0.825]. No significant differences were observed in terms of image stimulation, puncture texture, needle visualization, drainage simulation, and endurance of the phantom between emergency residents and trainees. However, experienced residents rated puncture texture and draining fluid as "neutral" (3/5 on the Likert scale). The cost of the paracentesis phantom is US$16.00 for at least 30 simulations, reducing it to US$6.00 without a container.
conclusionsThe paracentesis phantom proves to be a practical and cost-effective training tool. It enables novices to acquire paracentesis skills, enhances their US proficiency, and boosts their confidence. Nevertheless, further investigation is needed to assess its long-term impact on clinical performance in real patients.
trial registrationNCT04792203 at the ClinicalTrials.gov.
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.