ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Quality assessment of a training program for undergraduate sonography peer tutors: paving the future way for peer-assisted learning in medical ultrasound education.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Peer tutoring has been increasingly used to support university sonography teaching, necessitating well-qualified tutors. This study aims to evaluate the quality of a training program for sonography peer tutors developed and implemented at a university hospital. Materials and methods: A training program consisting of 11 modules was developed and subsequently evaluated for success with two subjective and two objective assessments of peer-tutoring quality. The two subjective assessments measured subjective scores of the peer tutors' specialist and didactic skills using a Likert scale (1 = very low; 7 = very high) from the perspective of the individuals the peer tutor taught (assessment 1) and from the peer tutors themselves (assessment 2). The peer tutors also rated the training concept itself. The objective assessments evaluated the peer tutors' specialist skills with a theoretical test (assessment 3) and a practical examination (assessment 4). Data collection for assessment 1 began in 2017, while data for assessments 2 to 4 were collected from 2021 to 2024. Results: A total of 2,980 data sets for assessment 1, 92 data sets for 2, 44 data sets for assessment 3, and 147 data sets for assessment 4 were included in the analysis. Peer tutors scored highly positively on assessments 1 [6.6 ± 0.63 scale points (SP)] and 2 (5.53 ± 0.63 SP), and these results remained consistently high throughout the semesters. Assessments 3 (74.7 ± 7.9%) and 4 (85.6 ± 10.5%) also showed strongly positive values that remained constant over time. Assessment 1 results were significantly higher than the others ( Conclusion: The data indicate that the training concept developed established and maintained high-quality peer-tutor training throughout the reviewed semesters. Future efforts should promote the development of national and international standards for peer-tutor training and provide certification opportunities for peer tutors.
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.