ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Development and validation of a theoretical test for ultrasound-guided biopsy competence in the head and neck.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis prospective study is designed to test the validity of a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test in assessing theoretical knowledge of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biosy and core-needle biopsy of the head and neck.
methodsSeven international experts reached consensus on the MCQ test using a modified Delphi process. After consensus, the MCQ was tested on novices (n=59) and experienced specialists (n=17). Item analysis was performed to evaluate difficulty and discriminatory ability, Cronbach's α was calculated to assess internal consistency reliability, and group differences were compared using ANOVA and t-tests. The contrasting groups' standard setting method was applied to set a pass/fail standard and thereafter, participants in a head and neck ultrasound course (n=27) took the test to assess the consequences.
resultsTwo Delphi rounds yielded a 23-item MCQ test that reflected essential knowledge for ultrasound-guided biopsies. Two poorly performing items were removed following item analysis, resulting in a 21-item test with good reliability, Cronbach's α=0.82. Experienced clinicians scored significantly higher (mean 20.0±0.9) than both course participants (17.3±2.8) and novices (13.5±3.6, p<0.001). A pass/fail score of 18/21 (≈86%) was established as the cut-off. At this standard, 100% of experts passed the test while only 13.6% of novices and 63% of course participants achieved a passing score.
conclusionAn MCQ test of theoretical knowledge for ultrasound-guided head and neck biopsies was developed with evidence of validity across all five sources in Messick's framework. The test demonstrated strong content validity through expert consensus, good internal structure, significant discrimination between experience levels, and a defensible pass/fail standard. At present, the instrument should be interpreted as a theoretical knowledge assessment that may complement, but not replace, practical skills-based assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42543435What 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.