Samantha Arora1, Angela C Cheung2, Usman Tarique3, Arnav Agarwal3, Mohammed Firdouse3, Jonathan Ailon3,4,5. 1. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Toronto Centre for Liver Disease, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada. 5. Saint Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, 4-146 Cardinal Carter Wing, Toronto, ON M5B1W8 Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare point-of-care ultrasound and physical examination (PEx), each performed by first-year medical students after brief teaching, for assessing ascites and hepatomegaly. Ultrasound and PEx were compared on: (1) reliability, validity and performance, (2) diagnostic confidence, ease of use, utility, and applicability. METHODS: A single-center, randomized controlled trial was performed at a tertiary centre. First-year medical students were randomized to use ultrasound or PEx to assess for ascites and hepatomegaly. Cohen's kappa and interclass coefficient (ICC) were used to measure interrater reliability between trainee assessments and the reference standard (a same day ultrasound by a radiologist). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared. A ten-point Likert scale was used to assess trainee diagnostic confidence and perceptions of utility. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in interobserver reliability, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, or NPV between the ultrasound and PEx groups. However, students in the ultrasound group provided higher scores for perceived utility (ascites 8.38 ± 1.35 vs 7.08 ± 1.86, p = 0.008; hepatomegaly 7.68 ± 1.52 vs 5.36 ± 2.48, p < 0.001) and likelihood of adoption (ascites 8.67 ± 1.61 vs 7.46 ± 1.79, p = 0.02; hepatomegaly 8.12 ± 1.90 vs 5.92 ± 2.32, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When performed by first-year medical students, the validity and reliability of ultrasound is comparable to PEx, but with greater perceived utility and likelihood of adoption. With similarly brief instruction, point-of-care ultrasonography can be as effectively learned and performed as PEx, with a high degree of interest from trainees.
PURPOSE: To compare point-of-care ultrasound and physical examination (PEx), each performed by first-year medical students after brief teaching, for assessing ascites and hepatomegaly. Ultrasound and PEx were compared on: (1) reliability, validity and performance, (2) diagnostic confidence, ease of use, utility, and applicability. METHODS: A single-center, randomized controlled trial was performed at a tertiary centre. First-year medical students were randomized to use ultrasound or PEx to assess for ascites and hepatomegaly. Cohen's kappa and interclass coefficient (ICC) were used to measure interrater reliability between trainee assessments and the reference standard (a same day ultrasound by a radiologist). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared. A ten-point Likert scale was used to assess trainee diagnostic confidence and perceptions of utility. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in interobserver reliability, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, or NPV between the ultrasound and PEx groups. However, students in the ultrasound group provided higher scores for perceived utility (ascites 8.38 ± 1.35 vs 7.08 ± 1.86, p = 0.008; hepatomegaly 7.68 ± 1.52 vs 5.36 ± 2.48, p < 0.001) and likelihood of adoption (ascites 8.67 ± 1.61 vs 7.46 ± 1.79, p = 0.02; hepatomegaly 8.12 ± 1.90 vs 5.92 ± 2.32, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When performed by first-year medical students, the validity and reliability of ultrasound is comparable to PEx, but with greater perceived utility and likelihood of adoption. With similarly brief instruction, point-of-care ultrasonography can be as effectively learned and performed as PEx, with a high degree of interest from trainees.
Authors: Wolfgang Kratzer; Violetta Fritz; Richard A Mason; Mark M Haenle; Volker Kaechele Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Sergio L Kobal; Luca Trento; Simin Baharami; Kirsten Tolstrup; Tasneem Z Naqvi; Bojan Cercek; Yoram Neuman; James Mirocha; Saibal Kar; James S Forrester; Robert J Siegel Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Joel Cho; Trevor P Jensen; Kreegan Reierson; Benji K Mathews; Anjali Bhagra; Ricardo Franco-Sadud; Loretta Grikis; Michael Mader; Ria Dancel; Brian P Lucas; Nilam J Soni Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Geert Koster; Thomas Kaufmann; Bart Hiemstra; Renske Wiersema; Madelon E Vos; Devon Dijkhuizen; Adrian Wong; Thomas W L Scheeren; Yoran M Hummel; Frederik Keus; Iwan C C van der Horst Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2020-01-08
Authors: Rajkumar Rajendram; Abdullah O Alrasheed; Abdulaziz A Boqaeid; Faris K Alkharashi; Salman S Qasim; Arif Hussain Journal: J Family Community Med Date: 2022-01-19