ReviewBMC medical education2026
Contemporary perspectives and debates in student ultrasound education: exploring didactic elements and theoretical aspects.
Review in BMC medical education, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical ultrasound education is evolving, embracing various teaching methods such as classical, e-learning, and hands-on approaches. The integration of ultrasound into medical school curricula has highlighted the importance of blended learning, although there is limited literature on specific learning theories and pedagogical concepts. Medical ultrasound learning is unique, requiring psychomotor and technical skills in probe handling, anatomical and clinical knowledge, and cognitive abilities for image interpretation.
methodsA review of literature in a systematic way was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, using predefined search terms such as "ultrasound education," "e-learning," "simulation-based ultrasound," and "peer-assisted learning ultrasound." The search targeted studies focusing on undergraduate medical education and ultrasound instruction. Following duplicate removal, two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, with eligible full-text articles assessed against inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they addressed didactic ultrasound teaching methods and reported on educational outcomes relevant to medical students or trainees.
resultsThe inverted classroom approach, where preparatory material is studied before class, was effective in ultrasound education. Blended learning, an educational approach that combines traditional classroom instruction with online learning activities and resources, enhanced both cognitive understanding and practical skills. Simulation-based training emerged as valuable, providing safe environments for learning and is applicable across pre-clinical and clinical phases. The study also assessed the advantages and limitations of simulation-based training and e-learning. DISCUSSION: The paper highlights the need for diverse teaching methodologies in ultrasound education. It emphasizes that while traditional methods may be cost-effective, modern approaches, such as blended learning and simulation-based training, offer more engaging, practical, and efficient learning experiences. Integrating these methods within existing curricula enhances ultrasound training quality, advocating for an interdisciplinary and technologically adapted approach.
conclusionThe study concludes that a blend of traditional and contemporary teaching methods, including e-learning and simulation, is essential for effective ultrasound education in medical studies. Adapting to technological advancements and diverse learning styles is crucial in preparing students for modern healthcare demands.
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.