Lung ultrasound training: a systematic review of published literature in clinical lung ultrasound training.

IF 3.6 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Pia Iben Pietersen, Kristian Rørbæk Madsen, Ole Graumann, Lars Konge, Bjørn Ulrik Nielsen, Christian Borbjerg Laursen
{"title":"Lung ultrasound training: a systematic review of published literature in clinical lung ultrasound training.","authors":"Pia Iben Pietersen,&nbsp;Kristian Rørbæk Madsen,&nbsp;Ole Graumann,&nbsp;Lars Konge,&nbsp;Bjørn Ulrik Nielsen,&nbsp;Christian Borbjerg Laursen","doi":"10.1186/s13089-018-0103-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical lung ultrasound examinations are widely used in the primary assessment or monitoring of patients with dyspnoea or respiratory failure. Despite being increasingly implemented, there is no international consensus on education, assessment of competencies, and certification. Today, training is usually based on the concept of mastery learning, but is often unstructured and limited by bustle in a clinical daily life. The aim of the systematic review is to provide an overview of published learning studies in clinical lung ultrasound, and to collect evidence for future recommendations in lung ultrasound education and certification.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>According to PRISMA guidelines, three databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) were searched, and two reviewers examined the results for eligibility. Included publications were described and assessed for level of evidence and risk of bias according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Risk of Bias assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 7796 studies screened, 16 studies were included. Twelve pre- and post-test studies, three descriptive studies and one randomized controlled trial were identified. Seven studies included web-based or online modalities, while remaining used didactic or classroom-based lectures. Twelve (75%) studies provided hands-on sessions, and of these, 11 assessed participants' hands-on skills. None of the studies used validated neither written nor practical assessment. The highest level of evidence score was 2 (n = 1), remaining scored 4 (n = 15). Risk of bias was assessed high in 11 of 16 studies (68.75%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All educational methods proved increased theoretical and practical knowledge obtained at the ultrasound courses, but the included studies were substantial heterogeneous in setup, learning-, and assessment methods, and outcome measures. On behalf of current published studies, it was not possible to construct clear guidelines for the future education and certification in clinical lung ultrasound, but the use of different hands-on training facilities tends to contribute to different aspects of the learning process. This systematic review proves a lack of learning studies within this content, and research with validated theoretical and practical tests for assessment is desired.</p>","PeriodicalId":46598,"journal":{"name":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13089-018-0103-6","citationCount":"75","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-018-0103-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 75

Abstract

Background: Clinical lung ultrasound examinations are widely used in the primary assessment or monitoring of patients with dyspnoea or respiratory failure. Despite being increasingly implemented, there is no international consensus on education, assessment of competencies, and certification. Today, training is usually based on the concept of mastery learning, but is often unstructured and limited by bustle in a clinical daily life. The aim of the systematic review is to provide an overview of published learning studies in clinical lung ultrasound, and to collect evidence for future recommendations in lung ultrasound education and certification.

Methods: According to PRISMA guidelines, three databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) were searched, and two reviewers examined the results for eligibility. Included publications were described and assessed for level of evidence and risk of bias according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Risk of Bias assessment.

Results: Of 7796 studies screened, 16 studies were included. Twelve pre- and post-test studies, three descriptive studies and one randomized controlled trial were identified. Seven studies included web-based or online modalities, while remaining used didactic or classroom-based lectures. Twelve (75%) studies provided hands-on sessions, and of these, 11 assessed participants' hands-on skills. None of the studies used validated neither written nor practical assessment. The highest level of evidence score was 2 (n = 1), remaining scored 4 (n = 15). Risk of bias was assessed high in 11 of 16 studies (68.75%).

Conclusion: All educational methods proved increased theoretical and practical knowledge obtained at the ultrasound courses, but the included studies were substantial heterogeneous in setup, learning-, and assessment methods, and outcome measures. On behalf of current published studies, it was not possible to construct clear guidelines for the future education and certification in clinical lung ultrasound, but the use of different hands-on training facilities tends to contribute to different aspects of the learning process. This systematic review proves a lack of learning studies within this content, and research with validated theoretical and practical tests for assessment is desired.

Abstract Image

肺超声训练:对临床肺超声训练的已发表文献进行系统回顾。
背景:临床肺部超声检查被广泛用于呼吸困难或呼吸衰竭患者的初步评估或监测。尽管越来越多地实施,但在教育、能力评估和认证方面没有国际共识。今天,培训通常基于掌握学习的概念,但往往是无组织的,并受到临床日常生活的喧嚣的限制。系统评价的目的是提供临床肺超声已发表的学习研究的概述,并为今后肺超声教育和认证的建议收集证据。方法:根据PRISMA指南,检索三个数据库(PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library),由两位审稿人对结果进行合格性检查。根据牛津循证医学中心和Cochrane偏倚风险评估协作工具的指南,对纳入的出版物进行描述和评估证据水平和偏倚风险。结果:在筛选的7796项研究中,纳入了16项研究。共纳入12项测试前和测试后研究、3项描述性研究和1项随机对照试验。七项研究包括基于网络或在线的方式,而其余的则使用教学或课堂授课。12项(75%)研究提供了实践环节,其中11项评估了参与者的实践技能。所有的研究都没有对书面评估和实际评估进行验证。证据得分最高为2分(n = 1),其余为4分(n = 15)。16项研究中有11项评估为高偏倚风险(68.75%)。结论:所有的教育方法都证明了在超声课程中获得的理论和实践知识的增加,但纳入的研究在设置、学习、评估方法和结果测量方面存在很大的差异。就目前发表的研究而言,不可能为临床肺超声的未来教育和认证构建明确的指导方针,但使用不同的实践培训设施往往有助于学习过程的不同方面。这一系统的回顾证明了在这一内容中缺乏学习研究,并且需要对评估进行有效的理论和实践测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Ultrasound Journal
Critical Ultrasound Journal RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信