MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380271296 · doi:10.1186/s13089-023-00325-6

Point-of-Care-ultrasound in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review of assessment methods

2023· review· en· W4380271296 on OpenAlexafffund
Celina DeBiasio, Paul Pageau, Allan Shefrin, Michael Y. Woo, Warren J. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Ultrasound Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Data extractionCurriculumSystematic reviewMEDLINEMedical educationCategorizationInclusion (mineral)Medical physicsEducational measurementMedicineThematic analysisPoint of care ultrasoundPsychologyComputer scienceQualitative researchRadiologyUltrasoundPedagogyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Point-of-Care-Ultrasound (POCUS) curricula have rapidly expanded in undergraduate medical education (UME). However, the assessments used in UME remain variable without national standards. This scoping review characterizes and categorizes current assessment methods using Miller's pyramid for skills, performance, and competence of POCUS in UME. A structured protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A literature search of MEDLINE was performed from January 1, 2010, to June 15, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts for articles that met inclusion criteria. The authors included all POCUS UME publications in which POCUS-related knowledge, skills, or competence were taught and objectively assessed. Articles were excluded if there were no assessment methods used, if they exclusively used self-assessment of learned skills, were duplicate articles, or were summaries of other literature. Full text analysis and data extraction of included articles were performed by two independent reviewers. A consensus-based approach was used to categorize data and a thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 643 articles were retrieved and 157 articles met inclusion criteria for full review. Most articles (n = 132; 84%) used technical skill assessments including objective structured clinical examinations (n = 27; 17%), and/or other technical skill-based formats including image acquisition (n = 107; 68%). Retention was assessed in n = 98 (62%) studies. One or more levels of Miller's pyramid were included in 72 (46%) articles. A total of four articles (2.5%) assessed for students' integration of the skill into medical decision making and daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a lack of clinical assessment in UME POCUS that focus on integration of skills in daily clinical practice of medical students corresponding to the highest level of Miller's Pyramid. There exists opportunities to develop and integrate assessment that evaluate higher level competencies of POCUS skills of medical students. A mixture of assessment methods that correspond to multiple levels of Miller's pyramid should be used to best assess POCUS competence in UME.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0420.035
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.434 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Ultrasound JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207