ArticleBMC nursing2026
The effect of point-of-care ultrasound curriculum for nursing practitioners across different hospital levels.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiterature describing nurse practitioners’ (NPs) experiences with point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) training and clinical use remains limited. This study aims to assess the effect of PoCUS training for NPs across different hospital levels.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted. The curriculum comprised 1-hour didactics followed by a 3-hour hands-on training session. Written examinations and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) were administered immediately after training and at 3 months. Self-reported monthly PoCUS examination volumes during clinical practice after training were also collected.
resultsOne hundred and nineteen NPs across different hospital levels were recruited. They had better performance in both the written test and OSCE at the 3-month assessment compared to the immediate assessment. Following the curriculum, a greater proportion of NPs incorporated PoCUS into clinical practice, with abdominal ultrasound becoming the most used. Additionally, NPs working in settings without resident staff were significantly more likely to perform clinical PoCUS examinations (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.57–12.47) after adjusting for covariates such as age, sex, postgraduate year, hospital level, department, prior experience, and the initial assessment.
conclusionsThis focused PoCUS curriculum was associated with improved knowledge, skills and increased clinical use among NPs across different hospital levels, with greater uptake in teams without resident staff. However, interpretation is limited by short follow-up and self-reported use. Further studies with longer follow-up and direct assessment of clinical PoCUS performance are needed to better define training durability and the role of PoCUS in NP-led care.
trial registrationRegistered at the ClinicalTrials.gov. (NCT 06543693).
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.