Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Simulation-Based Training of Ultrasound-Guided Procedures in Radiology - A Systematic Review

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{7b7cf1d5a9754ecfa64fc5af168f4519,
title = "Simulation-Based Training of Ultrasound-Guided Procedures in Radiology - A Systematic Review",
abstract = "PURPOSE:  To perform a systematic review of the effect of simulation-based training (SBT) of percutaneous abdominal and thoracic ultrasound-guided procedures and to assess the transfer of procedural competence to a clinical context.MATERIALS AND METHODS:  This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies assessing procedural competence after SBT. Two authors independently reviewed all studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies (RoB) and non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I). Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.RESULTS:  42 studies were included. 6 were randomized controlled, 3 non-randomized controlled, and 33 non-randomized non-controlled. 26 studies examined US-guided abdominal procedures, 13 examined thoracic procedures, and 3 examined both. The results favored SBT compared to other educational interventions and found that training was superior to no training. Only two studies examined the transfer of procedural skills to a clinical context. All studies had a high or critical risk of bias. Thus, the quality of evidence for the effect of SBT on procedural competence was low, and evidence for its transfer to a clinical context was very low.CONCLUSION:  The evidence supporting SBT of percutaneous abdominal and thoracic US-guided procedures remains insufficient due to methodological problems and a high risk of bias. Future studies should be randomized and single-blinded, use assessment tools supported by validity evidence, compare different educational strategies, and examine the transfer of skills to a clinical setting.",
keywords = "Abdomen/diagnostic imaging, Computer Simulation, Humans, Phantoms, Imaging, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Thoracic Cavity/diagnostic imaging, Ultrasonography, Ultrasonography, Interventional",
author = "{Kahr Rasmussen}, Niklas and Andersen, {Tobias Thostrup} and Jonathan Carlsen and {\O}stergaard, {Mia Louise} and Lars Konge and Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste and Nielsen, {Michael Bachmann}",
note = "{\circledC} Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1055/a-0896-2714",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "584--602",
journal = "Ultraschall in der Medizin",
issn = "0172-4614",
publisher = "Georg/Thieme Verlag",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Simulation-Based Training of Ultrasound-Guided Procedures in Radiology - A Systematic Review

AU - Kahr Rasmussen, Niklas

AU - Andersen, Tobias Thostrup

AU - Carlsen, Jonathan

AU - Østergaard, Mia Louise

AU - Konge, Lars

AU - Albrecht-Beste, Elisabeth

AU - Nielsen, Michael Bachmann

N1 - © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

PY - 2019/10

Y1 - 2019/10

N2 - PURPOSE:  To perform a systematic review of the effect of simulation-based training (SBT) of percutaneous abdominal and thoracic ultrasound-guided procedures and to assess the transfer of procedural competence to a clinical context.MATERIALS AND METHODS:  This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies assessing procedural competence after SBT. Two authors independently reviewed all studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies (RoB) and non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I). Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.RESULTS:  42 studies were included. 6 were randomized controlled, 3 non-randomized controlled, and 33 non-randomized non-controlled. 26 studies examined US-guided abdominal procedures, 13 examined thoracic procedures, and 3 examined both. The results favored SBT compared to other educational interventions and found that training was superior to no training. Only two studies examined the transfer of procedural skills to a clinical context. All studies had a high or critical risk of bias. Thus, the quality of evidence for the effect of SBT on procedural competence was low, and evidence for its transfer to a clinical context was very low.CONCLUSION:  The evidence supporting SBT of percutaneous abdominal and thoracic US-guided procedures remains insufficient due to methodological problems and a high risk of bias. Future studies should be randomized and single-blinded, use assessment tools supported by validity evidence, compare different educational strategies, and examine the transfer of skills to a clinical setting.

AB - PURPOSE:  To perform a systematic review of the effect of simulation-based training (SBT) of percutaneous abdominal and thoracic ultrasound-guided procedures and to assess the transfer of procedural competence to a clinical context.MATERIALS AND METHODS:  This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies assessing procedural competence after SBT. Two authors independently reviewed all studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies (RoB) and non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I). Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.RESULTS:  42 studies were included. 6 were randomized controlled, 3 non-randomized controlled, and 33 non-randomized non-controlled. 26 studies examined US-guided abdominal procedures, 13 examined thoracic procedures, and 3 examined both. The results favored SBT compared to other educational interventions and found that training was superior to no training. Only two studies examined the transfer of procedural skills to a clinical context. All studies had a high or critical risk of bias. Thus, the quality of evidence for the effect of SBT on procedural competence was low, and evidence for its transfer to a clinical context was very low.CONCLUSION:  The evidence supporting SBT of percutaneous abdominal and thoracic US-guided procedures remains insufficient due to methodological problems and a high risk of bias. Future studies should be randomized and single-blinded, use assessment tools supported by validity evidence, compare different educational strategies, and examine the transfer of skills to a clinical setting.

KW - Abdomen/diagnostic imaging

KW - Computer Simulation

KW - Humans

KW - Phantoms, Imaging

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Thoracic Cavity/diagnostic imaging

KW - Ultrasonography

KW - Ultrasonography, Interventional

U2 - 10.1055/a-0896-2714

DO - 10.1055/a-0896-2714

M3 - Journal article

VL - 40

SP - 584

EP - 602

JO - Ultraschall in der Medizin

JF - Ultraschall in der Medizin

SN - 0172-4614

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 58457724