ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
A Randomized-Controlled Trial Using Point of Care Ultrasound to Evaluate Volunteer Patients in the Emergency Department Versus a Manikin Simulator for Improving Knowledge and Confidence of Hypotension and Shock in Medicine Sub-Internship Students.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. 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.
- Teaching Jugular Venous Pressure (JVP) Ultrasound: Methods That Improved Medical Students' Knowledge and Confidence in Performing JVP Assessment.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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
Aim: Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) excels in the assessment of patients with hypotension and shock. Whether using real patients or a manikin simulator to teach POCUS skills is preferable is not completely clear. We designed a randomized-controlled trial to compare these two different teaching methods of POCUS. Methods: We enrolled 47 medical students on an internal medicine sub-internship in this randomized-controlled trial. Twenty-four students were randomly assigned to the experimental group to learn from volunteer patients in the emergency department (ED), and 23 were randomly assigned to the control group to learn from a manikin simulator in a simulation center. All students received a didactic workshop focused on hypotension and shock, followed by supervised learning from either volunteer patients in the ED or a manikin simulator in a simulation center. Student knowledge and confidence were assessed through a pre-survey before the workshop, post-survey after the workshop, and a 3-month longitudinal survey after both the workshop and supervised POCUS learning were completed. The primary end point was assessment of student knowledge and confidence at the 3-month longitudinal time period. Results: At the 3-month longitudinal survey, there was no statistical difference in the primary end point of questions correctly answered by students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS), and no statistical difference in reported confidence between students in the experimental group from those in the control group (4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS). Conclusion: In this randomized-controlled trial using POCUS to assess hypotension and shock, there were no significant differences in learner knowledge and confidence between students in the ED experimental group learning from volunteer patients versus the control group learning from a manikin simulator indicating that the methods may be equally effective in teaching POCUS.
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.