ArticleAfrican journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence2024
Accuracy of focused cardiac ultrasound interpretation among emergency and critical care medicine residents in Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study.
Article in African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring multimodal large language models on transthoracic Echocardiogram (TTE) tasks for cardiovascular decision support.Journal of biomedical informatics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) has emerged as a valuable tool in emergency and critical care medicine, allowing for rapid assessment of cardiac function and structure at the bedside. This rapid diagnostic technique holds particular promise in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia, where access to standard echocardiography may be limited and delayed. However, the accuracy of FoCUS interpretation is highly dependent on the operator's skills and expertise. To inform the design of effective interventions, the study aimed to assess the accuracy of FoCUS interpretation and associated factors among senior Emergency Medicine residents at two large referral teaching hospitals in Ethiopia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from October to December 2023 among 80 residents at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital and St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College. To assess diagnostic accuracy, 15 pre-selected cardiac ultrasound videos (normal and pathological cases) were selected from American College of Emergency Physicians website and the PoCUS Atlas, and accurate interpretation was defined as correctly answering at least 12 out of 15 readings. A binary logistic regression model was fitted to identify significant factors at the 5% level of significance, where significant results were interpreted using adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Result: The overall accuracy in interpreting FoCUS findings was 47.5% (95% CI: 38.8-60.0%), with highest for collapsing Inferior Vena Cava (91.3%) and standstill (90.0%), and lowest for Regional Wall Motion Abnormality of Left Ventricle (46.3%). Residents who received training (AOR=4.14, 95%CI:1.32-13.04, Conclusion: The study identified a low overall accuracy in FoCUS interpretation, with accuracy improving with training and better perceived skill and confidence. Training programs with simulation, continuous education, and mentorship are crucial to enhance these critical skills.
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.