ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2026
Methods for teaching postgraduate point-of-care ultrasonography: a systematic review.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is increasingly used across multiple medical specialties, yet the impact of different teaching methods on learning outcomes remains unclear. Conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods of POCUS training and synthesize the available data. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, ERIC, and PsycINFO without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies were RCTs evaluating POCUS teaching methods for physicians. Studies focusing on pre-graduate learners, transesophageal or transvaginal ultrasound and procedural guidance were excluded. Records were screened and data were extracted by independent reviewers. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. The study protocol was prospectively registered in the international database of PROSPERO (CRD42024512650). Thirty-seven RCTs including 1,571 participants were identified. Interventions were grouped as simulation-based training (ten studies), web-based or video-assisted learning (ten studies), variations in training intensity or structure (eight studies), tele-mentoring (four studies), and other methods (five studies), mostly in comparison with traditional classroom teaching. Across most trials, interventions produced theoretical and practical skills without significant difference to traditional classroom models. Superiority was mainly observed when the intervention arm received greater training intensity or longitudinal supervision. Most studies used heterogeneous, non-standardizable assessments, precluding meta-analysis. For non-procedural postgraduate POCUS, several sustainable educational alternatives exist and may allow for similar competence when compared to traditional teaching. Training intensity, supervision, and longitudinal exposure may be more important determinants of learning outcomes than the teaching modality itself. Cognitively enriched formats may provide additional benefits. Further research is needed to define the optimal structure of POCUS curricula. Only one study assessed patient-centered outcomes, limiting conclusions regarding the clinical impact of educational interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42811229What 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.