Quality of Widely Available Video Instructional Materials for Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Procedure Training in Internal Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many instructional materials for point-of-care ultrasound (US)-guided procedures exist; however, their quality is unknown. This study assessed widely available educational videos for point-of-care US-guided procedures relevant to internal medicine: central venous catheterization, thoracentesis, and paracentesis. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, YouTube, and Google to identify videos for point-of-care US-guided paracentesis, thoracentesis, and central venous catheterization. Videos were evaluated with a 5-point scale assessing the global educational value and a checklist based on consensus guidelines for competencies in point-of-care US-guided procedures. RESULTS: For point-of-care US-guided central venous catheterization, 12 videos were found, with an average global educational value score ± SD of 4.5 ± 0.7. Indications to abort the procedure were discussed in only 3 videos. Five videos described the indications and contraindications for performing central venous catheterization. For point-of-care US-guided thoracentesis, 8 videos were identified, with an average global educational value score of 4.0 ± 0.9. Only one video discussed indications to abort the procedure, and 3 videos discussed sterile technique. For point-of-care US-guided paracentesis, 7 videos were included, with an average global educational value score of 4.1 ± 0.9. Only 1 video discussed indications to abort the procedure, and 2 described the location of the inferior epigastric artery. CONCLUSIONS: The 27 videos reviewed contained good-quality general instruction. However, we noted a lack of safety-related information in most of the available videos. Further development of resources is required to teach internal medicine trainees skills that focus on the safety of point-of-care US guidance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".