ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Point-of-care ultrasound for emergency pericardiocentesis: a multidimensional CUSUM analysis of the learning curve.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency point-of-care ultrasound-guided percutaneous pericardial catheter drainage (US-GPPCD) is a life-saving intervention for cardiac tamponade, yet the learning curve among novice operators in emergency settings remains poorly characterized, especially for multidimensional metrics and operator positioning. This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve, procedural efficiency, operator confidence, complications, and the influence of operator positioning for US-GPPCD performed by a single novice operator under direct supervision.
methodsA total of 33 consecutive patients undergoing US-GPPCD between October 2024 and December 2025 by a single novice operator without prior independent experience were enrolled. Procedural metrics were prospectively recorded immediately post-procedure, while clinical data were retrospectively collected. Demographic and clinical characteristics, procedure time, needle insertion site localization time, operator confidence score, operator position, and complications were analyzed. Three separate cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves were constructed for multidimensional learning curve analysis.
resultsCUSUM analysis divided the learning curve into two phases: phase 1 (cases 1-14, skill-acquisition) and phase 2 (cases 15-33, skill-proficiency). Procedure time and localization time were significantly longer, and operator confidence score was significantly lower, in phase 1 than in phase 2 (all P < 0.01). The complication rate was higher in phase 1 (28.6%) than in phase 2 (5.3%), with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.14). While left-side positioning was associated with shorter procedure time in unadjusted analysis, this effect was confounded by operator experience and not significant after adjustment.
conclusionIn this exploratory analysis, US-GPPCD showed acceptable short-term safety under direct supervision. A significant inflection point in procedural efficiency was observed at approximately 14 cases, while operator confidence consolidated shortly thereafter. These findings provide preliminary, hypothesis-generating evidence that may inform future training protocols, but require validation across multiple operators and centers.
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.