ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Development and validation of a multiple-choice test for head and neck ultrasound certification.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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.
- Bridging a curriculum gap: a structured model for integrating head and neck ultrasound training into undergraduate dental education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Multiple-Choice Tests in Head and Neck Ultrasound Created by Physicians and Large Language Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis prospective trial aimed to develop and gather validity evidence for a theoretical test in head and neck ultrasound (HNUS).
methodsSeven HNUS experts from Europe, North America, and Asia participated in a Delphi study to reach consensus on multiple choice test (MCT) items. Novices (n=56) and experienced HNUS operators (n=22) were then invited to take the full MCT. Based on their answers, an item-response analysis selected the MCT items with the best performance. Generalizability theory determined the number of MCT items sufficient for certification. An ANOVA test examined the MCT's ability to distinguish novices from experts and contrasting groups' standard setting was used to establish a cut-off test score. A group of physicians (n=23) was tested at a formal ultrasound course, and pass-fail consequences for the final test were evaluated.
resultsOver three Delphi rounds, 64 items were revised and 21 were excluded, yielding 106 items. The item-response analysis found nine items with low discrimination that were excluded based on the MCQ answers from 78 novices and experienced physicians who had taken the test. The final 97 test items had a high internal consistency reliability of 0.97, and an MCT with 15 items was found sufficient for certification purposes. The MCT could significantly discriminate between novices (mean 51.1, SD 13.8) and experienced participants (mean 92.0, SD 3.1), p < 0.001. A pass-fail score of 83 was established. At a formal introduction ultrasound course, 57% of the participants passed the MCT at the established pass-fail score.
conclusionThe developed MCT for HNUS, based on international expert consensus, has multiple sources of validity evidence to support its use as part of a thorough certification process.
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.