ArticleAEM education and training2025
Computer-Based Competency Assessment in Point-Of-Care Ultrasound: A Systematic Review.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Education and training models for point-of-care ultrasound in perioperative medicine: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Computer-Based Competency Assessment in Point-Of-Care Ultrasound: A Systematic Review.AEM education and training · 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
Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for physicians across multiple medical specialties, yet substantial heterogeneity exists in how competency is assessed. Computer-based approaches can be used to deliver, grade, and analyze learner performance, and may be more objective and reliable than traditional approaches using expert assessments. This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the existing literature surrounding computer-based approaches to assessing POCUS competency. Methods: We searched six online databases (MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, PsycINFO (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection). We included original peer-reviewed studies that assessed computer-based metrics of POCUS competence among any learner group performing POCUS. We also reviewed reference lists of all included studies. We extracted data elements that included the specialty of participants, POCUS experience, POCUS modality used, and type and results of computer-based competency assessments. At least two authors conducted title and abstract screening, full text review, and data extraction, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third author. We present a qualitative synthesis of study findings. Results: Of 7375 identified studies, we included 28 in our final analysis. Computer-based metrics were used to assess knowledge ( Conclusion: We identified four computer-based metrics for assessing POCUS competence, many of which demonstrated consistent performance in distinguishing skill level. Further work is needed to standardize and validate those approaches.
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.