This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Musculoskeletal system, Musculoskeletal joint, Anatomy, Ultrasound, Ultrasound-Colour Doppler, Diagnostic procedure, Education, Structured reporting, Trauma, Education and training, Inflammation
Authors:
F. Huber, F. Kainberger, L. Hirtler; Vienna/AT
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2017/C-3135
Results
Student parameters showed higher recognition rates for dynamically documented examination,
when compared to static images.
Comparison of the two student groups showed lower mean duration of examination in the “MicroVids” group.
Male test subjects partly had significantly higher test scores,
compared to female probands (p=0.01).
Student scores showed significant differences depending on the method of test results' evaluation (mean student scores ranging from 11% to over 70%).
Thirty-three probandsfully passed the elective-like setup (9 male,
14 female,
39% vs.
61%),
consisting of two written exams and one diagnostic quiz.
Average written test scores were 5.92 ± 2.22 at the first moment and 10.26 ± 2.99 at the second test moment (49.31 ± 18.54 % vs.
49.2 ± 17.98 %).
Regarding duration of examination and documentation,
there were no significant differences between the two groups of probands.
Evaluation of the diagnosis quizzes showed differences for recognition rates depending on whether an anatomic structure had to be found in a static image or in a MicroVids-Video.
Landmarks in MicroVids showed higher true recognition rates.
Recognition rates were evaluated by different minimum criteria for positive answers.
Asking for a specific anatomic landmark in a specific aspect (transverse or longitudinal view) showed an average rate of recognized structures of 9.3 ± 10.6 % in static images vs.
13.6 ± 13.7 % in MicroVids.
Most interestingly,
recognition rates for anatomic tissue type and basic surrounding lead to recognition rates of 65.66 ± 22.54 and 64.62 ± 23.21 % (Static vs.
MV).
These results were even higher,
when only tissue type was asked for.
There were no notable differences regarding overall recognition rates depending on age,
study progress,
sex or initial groups of documentation method (“Static” and “MV”).
However,
male test subjects showed significantly higher recognition rates of static images than females.
(p = 0.01).