RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of nine different HHUS devices in terms of B-scan quality, device handling, and software features under abdominal imaging conditions. METHODS: Nine different HHUS devices (Butterfly iQ+, Clarius C3HD3, D5CL Microvue, Philips Lumify, SonoEye Chison, SonoSite iViz, Mindray TE Air, GE Vscan Air, and Youkey Q7) were used in a prospective setting by a total of 12 experienced examiners on the same subjects in each case and then assessed using a detailed questionnaire regarding B-scan quality, handling, and usability of the software. The evaluation was carried out using a point scale (5 points: very good; 1 point: insufficient). RESULTS: In the overall evaluation, Vscan Air and SonoEye Chison achieved the best ratings. They achieved nominal ratings between "good" (4 points) and "very good" (5 points). Both devices differed significantly (p < 0.01) from the other seven devices tested. Among the HHUS devices, Clarius C3HD3 and Vscan Air achieved the best results for B-mode quality, D5CL Microvue achieved the best results for device handling, and SonoEye Chison and Vscan Air achieved the best results for software. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study to directly compare different HHUS devices in a head-to-head manner. While the majority of the tested devices demonstrated satisfactory performance, notable discrepancies were observed between them. In particular, the B-scan quality exhibited considerable variation, which may have implications for the clinical application of HHUS. The findings of this study can assist in the selection of an appropriate HHUS device for specific applications, considering the clinical objectives and acknowledging the inherent limitations.
RESUMEN
In Germany, progress assessments in head and neck ultrasonography training have been carried out mainly theoretically and lack standardisation. Thus, quality assurance and comparisons between certified courses from various course providers are difficult. This study aimed to develop and integrate a direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) in head and neck ultrasound education and explore the perceptions of both participants and examiners. Five DOPS tests oriented towards assessing basic skills were developed for certified head and neck ultrasound courses on national standards. DOPS tests were completed by 76 participants from basic and advanced ultrasound courses (n = 168 documented DOPS tests) and evaluated using a 7-point Likert scale. Ten examiners performed and evaluated the DOPS after detailed training. The variables of "general aspects" (6.0 Scale Points (SP) vs. 5.9 SP; p = 0.71), "test atmosphere" (6.3 SP vs. 6.4 SP; p = 0.92), and "test task setting" (6.2 SP vs. 5.9 SP; p = 0.12) were positively evaluated by all participants and examiners. There were no significant differences between a basic and advanced course in relation to the overall results of DOPS tests (p = 0.81). Regardless of the courses, there were significant differences in the total number of points achieved between individual DOPS tests. DOPS tests are accepted by participants and examiners as an assessment tool in head and neck ultrasound education. In view of the trend toward "competence-based" teaching, this type of test format should be applied and validated in the future.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound diagnostics is an important examination method in everyday clinical practice, but student education is often inadequate for acquiring sufficient basic skills. Individual universities have therefore started integrating (extra)curricular training concepts into medical education. This study aimed to evaluate sustainable skills development through participation in peer-assisted ultrasound courses. METHODS: From 2017, students in the clinical part of medical school could opt for extracurricular peer-assisted ultrasound courses. Depending on the format (10-week course/2-day compact course) these comprised 20 teaching units focusing on abdominal and emergency ultrasonography. Students attending compulsory workshops at the start of their practical year were enrolled in this study, allowing for a comparison between the study group (attended ultrasound course) and the control group (did not attend ultrasound course). Competency from two out of four practical exams (subjects: "aorta", "gallbladder", "kidney" and "lung") was measured, and a theory test on the same subject areas ("pathology recognition") was administered. Additional questions concerned biographical data, subjective competency assessment (7-point Likert scale), and "attitude to ultrasound training in the curriculum". RESULTS: Analysis included 302 participants in total. Ultrasound courses had been attended on average 2.5 years earlier (10-week course) and 12 months earlier (2-day compact course), respectively. The study group (n = 141) achieved significantly better results than the control group (n = 161) in the long-term follow-up. This applies both to practical exams (p < 0.01) and theory tests (p < 0.01). After course attendance, participants reported a significantly higher subjective assessment of theoretical (p < 0.01) and practical (p < 0.01) ultrasound skills. CONCLUSIONS: Peer-assisted ultrasound courses can sustainably increase both theoretical and practical competency of medical students. This highlights the potential and need for standardised implementation of ultrasound courses in the medical education curriculum.