ArticleThe ultrasound journal2024
Online vs in-person musculoskeletal ultrasound course: a cohort comparison study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of life among medical students: Analysis of pooled cohorts in the prospective POLLEK cohort study.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study of a Synchronous Virtual Ultrasound Imaging Module for Physiotherapy Education.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026Article
- The accuracy of preoperative ultrasound use in primary flexor tendon repair: A systematic review.JPRAS open · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care musculoskeletal (MSK) ultrasound (US) courses are typically held in-person. The COVID-19 pandemic guidelines forced courses to switch to online delivery. To determine this impact, we conducted an observational cohort study, comparing homework completion and image quality between an Online and a historical In-person cohort.
methodsThe In-person (n = 27) and Online (n = 24) cohorts attended two learning sessions spaced six months apart. The course content was the same, while the process of delivery differed. As homework, participants submitted US images biweekly for up to five months after each session. Expert faculty provided written feedback to all participants, and two independent reviewers rated the image quality for a subset of participants in each group who had completed at least 70% of their homework (In-person, n = 9; Online, n = 9). Participants self-reported their satisfaction through post-course evaluation.
results63% of In-Person and 71% of Online cohort participants submitted their homework images. We observed no differences in the mean amount of homework images submitted for In-person (M = 37.3%, SD = 42.6%) and Online cohorts (M = 48.1%, SD = 38.8%; p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney U Test). At course end, the cohorts did not differ in overall image quality (p > 0.05, Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test). All participants reported high levels of satisfaction.
conclusionsA convenience sample of participants attending a basic MSK US course in-person and online did not differ statistically in homework completion, quality of submitted US images, or course satisfaction. We add to literature suggesting online learning remains a viable option post-pandemic.
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.