Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42387530›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2026

Point-of-care ultrasound tele-didactic teaching for prehospital emergency personnel (POCUS TT study): a randomized non-inferiority trial.

Josef Michael Lintschinger, Benedikt Degischer, Luca Dronigi, Adrian Bolnberger, Benjamin Erdös, Alexandra Kaider, Daniel Alexander Klaus, Ingrid Magnet, Miklós Constantinovits, Viktória Vadas and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06824675 (Point-of-care Ultrasound Teledidactic Teaching for Prehospital Emergency Personnel), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06824675 nacompletednot on this map

Point-of-care Ultrasound Teledidactic Teaching for Prehospital Emergency Personnel

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical University of ViennaRan2025 to 2025Enrolled90ConditionseFast, Fate, Education, Medical, Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS)ArmsTeledidactic Training, In-Person Hands-on Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Josef Michael LintschingerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9827-2773
Benedikt DegischerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-8832-8616
Luca DronigiDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-7738-6629
Adrian BolnbergerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4027-1763
Benjamin ErdösMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3734-2038
Alexandra KaiderCenter for Medical Data Science, Institute of Clinical Biometrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Daniel Alexander KlausDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0933-9997
Ingrid MagnetDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7577-9712
Miklós ConstantinovitsNational Ambulance Service, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4046-0661
Viktória VadasFaculty of Health and Public Administration, Health Services Management Training Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5573-4228
Ákos TiboldiThe Research Center in Cooperation With AUVA, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9778-4187
Christina HafnerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, Austria. christina.hafner@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4075-1787

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS), including non-physician providers. However, access to high-quality hands-on training is often limited. Tele-didactic approaches may provide a scalable alternative, but comparative evidence is scarce. This study evaluated whether tele-didactic training is non-inferior to face-to-face instruction for teaching the extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) protocol.

methodsIn this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, non-physician EMS personnel from Austria and Hungary with limited prior POCUS experience were randomly assigned to either tele-didactic or face-to-face hands-on training. All participants first completed a standardized e-learning course, followed by a one-hour practical training session according to group allocation. Performance was subsequently evaluated in a simulated scenario using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS; range 7-35), with assessments conducted by blinded experts. The inferiority limit was set at a difference in means of 7 OSAUS score points. The analysis was conducted according to the per-protocol principle. Secondary outcomes included OSAUS subdomain scores, time to task completion, cognitive load as measured by the NASA Task Load Index, and user experience.

resultsA total of 90 participants were analyzed (45 per group). Mean OSAUS scores were 26.6 ± 4.6 (face-to-face) and 27.6 ± 4.3 (tele-didactic), with a mean difference of 1.0 (lower 97.5% confidence limit: -0.8), demonstrating non-inferiority (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in adjusted analyses or OSAUS subdomains. Time to completion and cognitive load were comparable between groups. Tele-didactic training showed high technical feasibility and user satisfaction, with minimal technical issues.

conclusionTele-didactic training achieved comparable short-term performance outcomes and was well accepted by participants, supporting its potential as a feasible approach to expanding access to eFAST training for non-physician EMS providers.

trial registrationThis study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06824675; 07-Feb-2025).

Indexed as

Education, DistanceEmergency Medical ServicesEmergency Medical TechniciansPoint-of-Care SystemsAdultAustriaClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansHungaryMaleProspective StudiesUltrasonographyEmergency medicineMedical educationPoint-of-care ultrasoundTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID42387530
PMCPMC13591723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.