Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543551›Full record

ReviewBMC medical education2024

Exploring the dynamics of ultrasound training in medical education: current trends, debates, and approaches to didactics and hands-on learning.

Florian Recker, Ricarda Neubauer, Yi Dong, Anna Maria Gschmack, Christian Jenssen, Kathleen Möller, Michael Blaivas, Prats Michael Ignacio, Claudia Lucius, Johannes Ruppert and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Florian Recker *Department of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9135-4338
Ricarda Neubauer *University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9856-8988
Yi DongDepartment of Ultrasound, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Anna Maria GschmackDepartment of Medicine, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1584-2705
Christian JenssenDepartment for Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland, Strausberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7008-6650
Kathleen MöllerMedical Department I/Gastroenterology, SANA Hospital Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9492-0141
Michael BlaivasUniversity of South Carolina School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7196-9765
Prats Michael IgnacioThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1736-7912
Claudia LuciusOutpatient Department of Gastroenterology, IBD Centre Helios Hospital Berlin Buch, 13125, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2640-011X
Johannes RuppertDepartment of Medicine, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-3509-422X
Sophie-Luise SängerMedizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-3787-9733
Roxana SirliCenter for Advanced Research in Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, "Victor Babeș" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timișoara, Romania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0179-1014
Johannes WeimerRudolf Frey Learning Clinic, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3759-8176
Susan Campbell WesterwaySchool of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5104-073X
Constantinos ZervidesCZMH Medical Physics and Dosimetry Services LTD., Limassol, Cyprus.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7708-3698
Christoph Frank DietrichUniversity Hospital Frankfurt Johann-Wolfgang-Geothe University Frankfurt on the Main Theodor-Stern-Kai, 760596 , Frankfurt am Main, Germany. c.f.dietrich@googlemail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-6347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedical education, especially in ultrasound training, is undergoing significant changes. This study examines practical issues in ultrasound medical education, emphasizing state-of-the-art teaching methods, their effectiveness, and implementation challenges.

methodsThe study analyzed advancements in ultrasound education, including randomized controlled trials comparing peer-to-peer teaching with traditional faculty-led instruction. It evaluated the effectiveness of collaborative small-group training and group size impact in simulation-based training. The study also assessed practical training components outlined in the WFUMB Position Paper Part II.

resultsFindings indicate that peer-to-peer and collaborative small-group training are effective and cost-efficient. Group size did not significantly affect training outcomes. Key practical training elements, including early hands-on sessions and exposure to various equipment, substantially improved learning outcomes. Simulation tools like virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and phantoms were crucial for teaching standardized procedures and rare pathologies. Challenges identified include developing robust image acquisition skills, scarcity of qualified student tutors, and the need for reliable ultrasound skill assessment methods.

conclusionIntegrating peer-to-peer teaching and advanced simulation technologies significantly advances ultrasound medical education. These methods enhance cognitive and psychomotor skills but also present challenges such as ensuring quality education and developing effective assessment methods. Future research should compare different simulation tools and establish objective ultrasound proficiency assessment criteria. Continual method evaluation and improvement are essential for effective and standardized ultrasound training, ultimately enhancing patient care and clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalUltrasonographyCurriculumHumansPeer GroupSimulation TrainingVirtual RealityHands-on-learningMedical educationPractical trainingUltrasound training

Identifiers

PMID39543551
PMCPMC11566056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.