ArticleCureus2025
Independent Assessment of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Training Among Graduating Residents in Two Anesthesiology Residency Programs.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In the recent past, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been an integral part of resident education in anesthesiology. Residency programs have varied levels of POCUS curriculum. To assess the effectiveness of POCUS training, we conducted a study on graduating residents of two academic anesthesiology programs. To avoid bias, we used an external examiner to assess the effectiveness of teaching. Methods Graduating anesthesiology residents from the University of Minnesota (12 residents ) and the University of Iowa (24 residents) from 2022 and 2023 were included. Our study collected data on the different aspects of POCUS training: knowledge, ability to acquire and interpret images, and management of patients based on POCUS imaging in four different stations. The stations included multiple-choice questions (MCQs), image interpretation and patient management, image acquisition, and post-test surveys. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the knowledge, image interpretation, and post-test surveys between the two programs. Residents from the University of Minnesota performed slightly better in some areas than their University of Iowa counterparts in acquiring images in subcostal, parasternal short, parasternal long, and pneumothorax assessments. Conclusions Differences in teaching curriculum and model body habitus may account for the observed differences between the two groups. A structured POCUS curriculum with an unbiased means of assessing the effectiveness of teaching can be valuable in improving teaching methods and providing feedback to the learners. A study with additional cohorts, more sites, or a larger number of participants may have greater statistical power to detect potential differences between sites or cohorts.
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.