Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator

Abstract AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ultraschall in der Medizin 2003-08, Vol.24 (4), p.239-244
Hauptverfasser: Terkamp, C., Kirchner, G., Wedemeyer, J., Dettmer, A., Kielstein, J., Reindell, H., Bleck, J., Manns, M., Gebel, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 244
container_issue 4
container_start_page 239
container_title Ultraschall in der Medizin
container_volume 24
creator Terkamp, C.
Kirchner, G.
Wedemeyer, J.
Dettmer, A.
Kielstein, J.
Reindell, H.
Bleck, J.
Manns, M.
Gebel, M.
description Abstract AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound examination 75 % (SEM 9 %) of all pathologic findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM 8 %) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test (p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection. The time required for patient examination (10.57 min, SEM 3.25 min) was not significantly different (p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases (9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the sonographic findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the real patient situation (68 %, SEM 6 %) and the simulation (64 %, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better (p = 0.008) than the simulator (74 %, SEM 7 % vs. 61 %, SEM 12 %). CONCLUSION: In this first direct cross over comparison between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and reproducibly.
doi_str_mv 10.1055/s-2003-41713
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75728086</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>75728086</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-2d4f6d96fd0eecfc24c55513858832a26b85b3d740901b59afd6f3144291b55b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kD1PwzAQhi0EoqWwMaNMLMjF54_EGauqfKmCoXS2nNihqZK42Amo_56UBqbTq3v06u5B6BrIFIgQ9wFTQhjmkAA7QWPgTGKZSHqKxgQSinkMfIQuQtgSQlIQ5ByNgAsKwNMxelmVdVfptnRN5IpolhlX2yZaucZ9eL3b7KfR4ktX3T-ho1f7Ha2r1uvgusZEQ4Hzl-is0FWwV8OcoPXD4n3-hJdvj8_z2RLnjEOLqeFFbNK4MMTavMgpz4UQwKSQklFN40yKjJmEk5RAJlJdmLhgwDlN-9ivJuj22Lvz7rOzoVV1GXJbVbqxrgsqEQmVRMY9eDOAXVZbo3a-rLXfq7_ve-DuCLSb0tZWbV3nm_50BUQd3KqgDm7Vr1v2A_ntaDQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>75728086</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Thieme Connect Journals</source><creator>Terkamp, C. ; Kirchner, G. ; Wedemeyer, J. ; Dettmer, A. ; Kielstein, J. ; Reindell, H. ; Bleck, J. ; Manns, M. ; Gebel, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Terkamp, C. ; Kirchner, G. ; Wedemeyer, J. ; Dettmer, A. ; Kielstein, J. ; Reindell, H. ; Bleck, J. ; Manns, M. ; Gebel, M.</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound examination 75 % (SEM 9 %) of all pathologic findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM 8 %) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test (p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection. The time required for patient examination (10.57 min, SEM 3.25 min) was not significantly different (p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases (9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the sonographic findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the real patient situation (68 %, SEM 6 %) and the simulation (64 %, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better (p = 0.008) than the simulator (74 %, SEM 7 % vs. 61 %, SEM 12 %). CONCLUSION: In this first direct cross over comparison between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and reproducibly.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0172-4614</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-8782</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-41713</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14521149</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany</publisher><subject>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging ; Computer Simulation ; Education, Medical ; Humans ; Internal Medicine - education ; Observer Variation ; Originalarbeit ; Reproducibility of Results ; Teaching - methods ; Ultrasonography - methods</subject><ispartof>Ultraschall in der Medizin, 2003-08, Vol.24 (4), p.239-244</ispartof><rights>Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-2d4f6d96fd0eecfc24c55513858832a26b85b3d740901b59afd6f3144291b55b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-2003-41713.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gthieme$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-41713$$EHTML$$P50$$Gthieme$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3004,27903,27904,54537,54538</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14521149$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Terkamp, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirchner, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wedemeyer, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dettmer, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kielstein, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reindell, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleck, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manns, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebel, M.</creatorcontrib><title>Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator</title><title>Ultraschall in der Medizin</title><addtitle>Ultraschall in Med</addtitle><description>Abstract AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound examination 75 % (SEM 9 %) of all pathologic findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM 8 %) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test (p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection. The time required for patient examination (10.57 min, SEM 3.25 min) was not significantly different (p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases (9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the sonographic findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the real patient situation (68 %, SEM 6 %) and the simulation (64 %, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better (p = 0.008) than the simulator (74 %, SEM 7 % vs. 61 %, SEM 12 %). CONCLUSION: In this first direct cross over comparison between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and reproducibly.</description><subject>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Education, Medical</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine - education</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Originalarbeit</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Teaching - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - methods</subject><issn>0172-4614</issn><issn>1438-8782</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kD1PwzAQhi0EoqWwMaNMLMjF54_EGauqfKmCoXS2nNihqZK42Amo_56UBqbTq3v06u5B6BrIFIgQ9wFTQhjmkAA7QWPgTGKZSHqKxgQSinkMfIQuQtgSQlIQ5ByNgAsKwNMxelmVdVfptnRN5IpolhlX2yZaucZ9eL3b7KfR4ktX3T-ho1f7Ha2r1uvgusZEQ4Hzl-is0FWwV8OcoPXD4n3-hJdvj8_z2RLnjEOLqeFFbNK4MMTavMgpz4UQwKSQklFN40yKjJmEk5RAJlJdmLhgwDlN-9ivJuj22Lvz7rOzoVV1GXJbVbqxrgsqEQmVRMY9eDOAXVZbo3a-rLXfq7_ve-DuCLSb0tZWbV3nm_50BUQd3KqgDm7Vr1v2A_ntaDQ</recordid><startdate>20030801</startdate><enddate>20030801</enddate><creator>Terkamp, C.</creator><creator>Kirchner, G.</creator><creator>Wedemeyer, J.</creator><creator>Dettmer, A.</creator><creator>Kielstein, J.</creator><creator>Reindell, H.</creator><creator>Bleck, J.</creator><creator>Manns, M.</creator><creator>Gebel, M.</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030801</creationdate><title>Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator</title><author>Terkamp, C. ; Kirchner, G. ; Wedemeyer, J. ; Dettmer, A. ; Kielstein, J. ; Reindell, H. ; Bleck, J. ; Manns, M. ; Gebel, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-2d4f6d96fd0eecfc24c55513858832a26b85b3d740901b59afd6f3144291b55b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Education, Medical</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine - education</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Originalarbeit</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Teaching - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Terkamp, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirchner, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wedemeyer, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dettmer, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kielstein, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reindell, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleck, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manns, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebel, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultraschall in der Medizin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Terkamp, C.</au><au>Kirchner, G.</au><au>Wedemeyer, J.</au><au>Dettmer, A.</au><au>Kielstein, J.</au><au>Reindell, H.</au><au>Bleck, J.</au><au>Manns, M.</au><au>Gebel, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator</atitle><jtitle>Ultraschall in der Medizin</jtitle><addtitle>Ultraschall in Med</addtitle><date>2003-08-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>239</spage><epage>244</epage><pages>239-244</pages><issn>0172-4614</issn><eissn>1438-8782</eissn><abstract>Abstract AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound examination 75 % (SEM 9 %) of all pathologic findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM 8 %) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test (p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection. The time required for patient examination (10.57 min, SEM 3.25 min) was not significantly different (p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases (9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the sonographic findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the real patient situation (68 %, SEM 6 %) and the simulation (64 %, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better (p = 0.008) than the simulator (74 %, SEM 7 % vs. 61 %, SEM 12 %). CONCLUSION: In this first direct cross over comparison between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and reproducibly.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pmid>14521149</pmid><doi>10.1055/s-2003-41713</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0172-4614
ispartof Ultraschall in der Medizin, 2003-08, Vol.24 (4), p.239-244
issn 0172-4614
1438-8782
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75728086
source MEDLINE; Thieme Connect Journals
subjects Abdomen - diagnostic imaging
Computer Simulation
Education, Medical
Humans
Internal Medicine - education
Observer Variation
Originalarbeit
Reproducibility of Results
Teaching - methods
Ultrasonography - methods
title Simulation of Abdomen Sonography. Evaluation of a New Ultrasound Simulator
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T03%3A05%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Simulation%20of%20Abdomen%20Sonography.%20Evaluation%20of%20a%20New%20Ultrasound%20Simulator&rft.jtitle=Ultraschall%20in%20der%20Medizin&rft.au=Terkamp,%20C.&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=239&rft.epage=244&rft.pages=239-244&rft.issn=0172-4614&rft.eissn=1438-8782&rft_id=info:doi/10.1055/s-2003-41713&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E75728086%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=75728086&rft_id=info:pmid/14521149&rfr_iscdi=true