ArticleAnaesthesia2025
Development of an assessment tool for ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia image interpretation.
Article in Anaesthesia, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe success of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia depends on the acquisition and interpretation of optimal ultrasound images. This study aimed to develop an assessment tool to evaluate proficiency in interpreting ultrasound images for regional anaesthesia.
methodsThis study involved domain and item generation; preliminary testing; and content validity evaluation by an expert panel review. Questions were generated by the study group and pilot testing was conducted with UK-based anaesthesia consultants and resident doctors. Face validity was tested by thematic analysis of participant feedback questionnaires, discriminative ability using Rasch modelling of item response and internal reliability using Cronbach's α method.
resultsA 57-item pilot test was completed by 43 participants across clinical experiences from stage 1 training to consultant. Median (IQR [range]) completion time was 55 (41-64 [29-94]) min and fatigue point was question 49 of 57 (37-57 [15-57]). Rasch analysis led to the exclusion of seven items and content validity evaluation resulted in the removal of a further six items, resulting in a 44-item question set. The test showed good face validity, with a Cronbach's α of 0.92, indicating high internal reliability. DISCUSSION: This study produced a 44-item assessment tool to assess the proficiency of ultrasound image interpretation in regional anaesthesia for a range of upper limb, lower limb and truncal blocks, with proven face validity, internal reliability and content validity. Further testing with a larger sample is planned to verify reliability and validity, with the hope that this may be an asset for regional anaesthesia training and assessment.
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.