ArticleCJC open2026
Consensus-Based Marking Schemes to Assess Competence Using Free-Text Echocardiogram Summary Statements.
Article in CJC open, 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
Background: statements of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) reports can be used to assess trainees' competence in TTE interpretation. However, the inherent variability in wording and composition of summary statements creates challenges for developing marking schemes. This study aims to develop consensus-based marking schemes for TTE summary statements. Methods: A modified Delphi approach with 2 rounds of surveys and a consensus-finalizing meeting was conducted to establish items that should be included in the summary statement and items critical to fulfill competence. Via consensus (defined as > 80% agreement), experts determined what items always should be included, and what items should be included in specific indications or cardiac diagnoses. Results: The first and second round surveys were completed by 27 experts. Eleven experts participated in the consensus-finalizing meeting. This process established that 79 items should be included in the summary statement. Five general items (left ventricular [LV] size, LV systolic function, right ventricular size and right ventricular function, and a statement about valves) should be included in all summary statements, and the remaining 74 items should be included in the presence of abnormalities, specific indications, or relevant diagnoses. Sixteen items were deemed critical for competence. Only LV systolic function was deemed critical to fulfill competence in all summary statements, with the remaining 15 items critical in specific indications. Conclusions: These findings inform consensus-based marking schemes for TTE summary statements. When integrated into competence assessments, these findings will inform the training of TTE interpretation for cardiology residents.
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.