↓ Skip to main content

The learning curve of sonographic inferior vena cava evaluation by novice medical students: the Pavia experience

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ultrasound, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The learning curve of sonographic inferior vena cava evaluation by novice medical students: the Pavia experience
Published in
Journal of Ultrasound, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40477-018-0292-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Santi Di Pietro, Francesco Falaschi, Alice Bruno, Tiziano Perrone, Valeria Musella, Stefano Perlini

Abstract

The sonographic evaluation of inferior vena cava diameters and its collapsibility-that is also defined as the caval index-has become a popular way to easily obtain a noninvasive estimate of central venous pressure. This is generally considered an easy sonographic task to perform, and according to the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Guidelines 25 repetitions of this procedure should be sufficient to reach proficiency. However, little is known about the learning process for this sonographic technique. Therefore, we designed this study to investigate the learning curve of inferior vena cava evaluation. We enrolled a sample of ten ultrasound-naïve medical students who received a preliminary training provided by two Junior Emergency Medicine Residents. Following training, each student performed the sonographic task on 25 different patients who were hospitalized in the internal medicine ward. The students' performance was compared with the results obtained by a consultant in internal medicine with extensive experience in point-of-care ultrasound, who repeated the procedure on the same patients (gold standard). In detail, we evaluated the time to complete the task, the quality of the obtained images, and the ability to visually estimate and measure the caval index. Although most students (9/10) reached the pre-defined level of competence, their overall performance was inferior to the one achieved by the gold standard, with little improvement over time. However, repetition was associated with progressive shortening of the time needed to achieve readable images. Overall, these findings suggest that, although allowing to obtain a pre-defined competence, 25 repetitions are not enough to reach a good level of proficiency for this technique, that needs a longer training to be achieved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Professor 2 4%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 41%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 35%
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 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ultrasound
#300
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,376
of 347,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ultrasound
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 347,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.