ArticleThe ultrasound journal2026
Progress in lung ultrasound education: An updated systematic review.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracic ultrasound (TUS) is integrated into clinical practice across various medical specialties to aid with diagnosis and procedural safety. Significant variability in training approaches and standards exists between nations and individual centres. AIM AND
objectivesTo review how differences in published TUS training methods impact upon learning.
methodsA literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus, from Jan 2017 until May 2025. Studies involving TUS education using pre- and post-assessments of learning were included.
results12,460 studies were screened, 235 full texts assessed, and 68 were included in the review. Studies were mainly observational cohorts targeting different healthcare professionals. Ten randomized controlled trials, four non-randomized comparison and one switching replications evaluating different interventions were identified. Physicians were the primary audience in 65% while 29% focused on other healthcare professionals. Class-based teaching was the most common educational tool (66%) sometimes combined with web-based (16%). 84% of studies involved practical training, with training on humans alone (in 63% of cases). Most educational tools led to significant improvements in test scores, although assessment validity was rarely addressed.
conclusionOur review confirms various TUS educational methods are used in heterogenous participants. While most interventions demonstrated positive learning effects, few studies addressed how this translates to safe clinical use.
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.