ArticleJournal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
Teaching Clinical Competency: Evaluating POCUS-Guided Versus Landmark Techniques for Thoracostomy Tube Placement in Canine Cadavers by Veterinary Students.
Article in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001). 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
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of teaching novice learners the competency of small-bore wire-guided thoracostomy tube (SBWGTT) placement using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided and blind, landmark-guided techniques and assess the complications associated with each technique.
designCrossover randomized study.
settingClinical skills teaching of second-, third-, and fourth-year veterinary students. ANIMALS: Sixteen canine cadavers of various breeds, ages, and sexes.
interventionsThirty second, third and fourth-year DVM students were enrolled. Online and in-person training was completed before collection of cadaver data. Each student was randomized into two of four cadaver groups: POCUS-guided (U) and landmark-guided (L) protocols for either pleural effusion (PE) or pneumothorax (PN). Students placed SBWGTTs into canine cadavers with iatrogenic pleural space pathology (10 mL/kg of air and 10 mL/kg of fluid infused into each hemithorax); results were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsPlacement time, confidence in SBWGTT placement and ease of placement (using weighted scales), and complications (determined by necropsy) were recorded. Data were parametric. One SBWGTT was missing at necropsy. LPE SBWGTT placement (mean ± SD: 5.2 ± 1.1 min) was faster than UPE (7.9 ± 2.8 min, p = 0.0083) and UPN placement (9.0 ± 2.7 min, p = 0.0001). LPN placement (4.6 ± 1.6 min) was faster than UPN (p < 0.0001) and UPE placement (p = 0.0009). Eleven SBWGTTs were placed extrapleurally with no difference among groups. Four UPE SBWGTTs had intrathoracic complications, which were not different between groups (p > 0.05). Novices felt more confident that SBWGTTs were within the pleural space when using POCUS: UPN (mean ± SD: 7.2 ± 2.4) versus LPN (4.4 ± 2.6, p = 0.0232); LPE (4.6 ± 2.68) versus UPE (7.1 ± 2.9, p = 0.0326).
conclusionsPOCUS-guided SBWGTT placement performed by novices was slower with similar complication rates and higher confidence scores.
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.