↓ Skip to main content

Zum Stand der Ausbildung im Lungenultraschall

Overview of attention for article published in Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
Zum Stand der Ausbildung im Lungenultraschall
Published in
Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00063-017-0307-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Tomasi, J. Aichner, M. Heim, T. Edrich, D. Hinzmann, E. Kochs, B. Zwißler, P. Scheiermann

Abstract

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a point-of-care technique which can quickly identify or rule out pathological findings. To date, it is unclear if knowledge about the use of LUS is readily available. We aimed to identify how much knowledge about the use of LUS is present, if there is a need for teaching in LUS, as well as the preferred teaching method in LUS. A total of 54 participants from two university departments of anesthesiology were randomized into the groups Online, Classroom, and Control. The Online group was taught by videos, the Classroom group by a traditional lecture with hands-on training, and the Control group was not taught at all. We conducted a pre- and posttest as well as a retention test 4 weeks after the end of the study by means of a survey (comparison with Mann-Whitney U test or t‑test, respectively, with p < 0.05 considered to be significant). LUS is used "rarely" or "never", and mainly if there is a suspicion for pleural effusion (41.3%). There is a need for LUS (Online: 21.7%; Classroom: 60.9%; Control: 62.5%, p < 0.05). Hybrid teaching consisting of classroom-based and online-based teaching is preferred by the users (Online: 52.2%; Classroom: 56.5%; Control: 62.5%). At the end of the study, 32.6% of the participants of the intervention groups had used LUS in the diagnosis of a pneumothorax. Of the participants, 93.5% planned to use LUS more often in the future. LUS is rarely used. There is a considerable need for teaching of LUS. Internet-based teaching and traditional lectures are considered equal. Both teaching methods improve the knowledge about LUS and lead to increased use of LUS in daily practice. The participants prefer hybrid teaching incorporating both teaching methods.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 1 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,497,162
of 23,061,402 outputs
Outputs from Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin
#233
of 540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,780
of 310,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,061,402 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 540 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.