Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Phantom-based training of ultrasound-guided breast biopsy in medical education: a randomized controlled trial comparing handheld and high-end ultrasound.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern handheld ultrasound devices (HUDs) are attractive for teaching programs in undergraduate medical education due to their miniaturization and portability along at relatively low cost. They offer high-resolution imaging and are easy to use, opening up new possibilities for training of novices in ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous procedures. The objective of this study was to investigate if guidance by HUD is on par with a cart-based high-end ultrasound scanner (HEUS) regarding performance times and success rates in video- and phantom-based training of novices in US-guided freehand breast biopsy.
methods32 medical students without any experience in performing US-guided percutaneous biopsies, who had previously completed a standardized diagnostic US training program, were randomized into either a HUD-group (n = 16) or a HEUS-group (n = 16). After a video training lecture participants performed US-guided biopsies of hypoechogenic and hyperechogenic target-lesions in a breast phantom using either a HUD or a HEUS. Performance times and success rates were primary outcomes. Participants were asked to complete a post-study questionnaire (Likert Scale and Raw NASA Workload Task Load Index) for subjective assessment of the operability and individually perceived workload of both US imaging tools and guidance-techniques as secondary outcomes.
resultsBiopsy success rates were slightly higher using the HUD (79.7%) in comparison to the HEUS (68.8%, p = 0.045). Median performance times were similar for the HUD (0.63 min, interquartile range IQR = 0.37-1.08 min) compared to the HEUS (0.60 min, IQR = 0.30-2.09 min, p = 0.751). Operability and the individually perceived workload were rated equal.
conclusionsPercutaneous biopsy performed by novices using HUDs is feasible, performance times, success rates, operability and the individually perceived workload were on par with HEUS-guidance. HUDs can be used as cost-effective tools for percutaneous biopsy training purposes in medical education.
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.