↓ Skip to main content

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

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

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lung ultrasound training: a systematic review of published literature in clinical lung ultrasound training
Published in
The Ultrasound Journal, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13089-018-0103-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pia Iben Pietersen, Kristian Rørbæk Madsen, Ole Graumann, Lars Konge, Bjørn Ulrik Nielsen, Christian Borbjerg Laursen

Abstract

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. 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. 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%). 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 12%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 42 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 51 33%