ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Comparing commercial versus low-cost gelatinous phantoms for ultrasound-guided needle tracking: A randomized crossover trial, among emergency medicine residents.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. 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.
- Three-dimensional printed neonatal cannulation phantom for ultrasound-guided vascular access training.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gelatin-Based Liver Phantoms for Training Purposes: A Cookbook Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to devise a low-cost indigenous gelatin-based vascular phantom and to compare this newly constructed phantom with a commercially available phantom.
methodsThis was a randomized crossover study conducted at a tertiary care hospital of India. The aim of the study was to develop a prototype low-cost gelatin-based vascular phantom and compare it with a commercially available phantom. Gelatin, psyllium husk, corn starch, antiseptic liquid, food-coloring agent, latex balloons, and metallic containers were used to prepare the gelatin phantom. The newly prepared gelatin model was labeled "Model A" and the commercially available gelatin model was labeled "Model B." Emergency medicine residents (
resultsThe cost of our phantom was USD 6-8 (vs. USD 1000-1200 for commercial phantom). The participants rated the ease of performance and tissue resemblance as 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-5) for both the models "A" and "B." The supervisor rated the overall performance as 4 (IQR: 3-4) for both the models. In all the parameters assessed, model A was noninferior to model B.
conclusionThe indigenously developed vascular phantom was noninferior to the commercially available phantom in terms of tissue resemblance and overall performance. The cost involved was a fraction of that incurred with the currently available commercial model. The authors feel that gelatin-based models can be easily prepared in resource-constraint settings which may be used for USG-guided training and medical education in low- and middle-income countries.
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.