GallstoneRCTpCUSNCT04879459
Impact on Diagnostic Accuracy of a Specific Clinical Ultrasound Practical Teaching
An observational study of Gallstone, run by Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de Louvain at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
This research proposal is a pilot double-blind randomized control trial evaluating the impact on diagnostic accuracy of a Clinical UltraSound (CUS) teaching for gallbladder assessment using exclusively healthy volunteers for practical sessions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 100 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Gallstone
- What is being tested?
- Practical sessions to learn CUS exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- 12 Oct 2021to 11 Dec 2021
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 100 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Medical students →Participants An e-mail invitation is send three times over a two weeks period for participants enrollment. Participants are selected among medical students in their 5th year (Master 2). If e-mail is not sufficient, participants are invited during a medical course given in Université Catholique de Louvain. Medical students are invited to answer to a questionnaire defining their CUS use status (naïve or not) to assess for eligibility.
Who may be able to join
- ≥ 18 years of age
- 5th year medical students
- Considered naïve to CUS
- Signed consent and signed non-disclosure agreement obtained
Who cannot join
- Unable to use CUS due to a disability
- Prior CUS skills
- ∗ Secondary exclusion criteria
- Unable to use CUS due to a new disability
- Unable to complete the four study days
- Breach of "non disclosure agreement"
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Impact on Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Ultrasound Practical Teaching Exclusively Using Normal Gallbladder Patterns, a Pilot Double Blind Randomized Control Trial
This research proposal is a pilot double-blind randomized control trial evaluating the impact on diagnostic accuracy of a Clinical UltraSound (CUS) teaching for gallbladder assessment using exclusively healthy volunteers for practical sessions. Classically, a number of 25 to 50 CUS of the gallbladder is reported to achieve competency. Many CUS curricula or guidelines recommend reporting pathological cases, either a certain amount, either generically, in their core-ultrasound competency requirements. Using healthy volunteers is rarely meant to verify the hypothesis that practical sessions based on exclusively normal patterns combined with presentation of pathological ultrasound loops or images during theoretical sessions, could further allow reaching diagnostic accuracy requirements in clinical practice. In the present study, participants will be medical students in their 5th year, naïve to CUS use. Participants will be randomly be distributed between a control group undergoing a standard practical teaching on models presenting uncomplicated gallstones or normal gallbladder (no gallstones), and an intervention group undergoing a practical teaching exclusively on models presenting a normal gallbladder. Participants will be "blinded" to study endpoints as well as to group allocation. After three days of practical teaching on day 0-10-30, students will be evaluated on day 60 by 2 external investigators blinded to students group allocation. Diagnostic accuracy for gallstones will be measured using sensitivity and specificity. Statistical analysis will be performed blinded to students' name using IBM SPSS statistics 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). As is classical, the statistical tests will be rejected whenever the observed p-value is smaller than 0.05. Corrections for multiple testing will be used. A comparable diagnostic accuracy between groups could further support the use of healthy volunteers during practical teaching and ease clinical ultrasound curricula. Such a finding wouldn't however carry away the need for enhancing competencies during clinical practice or the need for continuing medical education, as for any medical procedure.
Read the detailed description
Background Critical care and emergency medicine are both specialties covering all types of pathologies concerning multiple etiologies and systems. Clinical UltraSound (CUS) curricula concerning those specialties are accordingly covering a wide range of ultrasound improved clinical examination. Recently, a questionnaire sent to American medical schools, reporting 84% response rate, enlightened that 55% of the clinical ultrasound course directors are emergency physicians. This supports the great implication of emergency medicine in CUS development.
In 2015, the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) Point of Care UltraSound (PoCUS) published an evidence-based consensus document for CUS curriculum based on national and international guidelines. Previously, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Director-Academy of Emergency Ultrasound (CORD-AEUS) consensus established guidelines to organize CUS training and assess resident competencies. To actual knowledge, although CUS training programs around the globe support the use of specific training to achieve CUS introduction in the emergency departments endorsing its use, there are still significant variations among proposed curricula. The training requirements are mostly described for core-ultrasound. Generally, core-ultrasound curricula encompass the skill acquisition of extended-Focused Assessment Sonography for Trauma (e-FAST), Aortic Aneurysm Assessment (AAA), basic cardiac and lung ultrasound and basic procedural ultrasound. Some include biliary and urinary tract assessment whereas others consider biliary and urinary tract assessment part of advanced CUS teaching. Most other specialties however focus their ultrasound teaching on the field of interest. For instance, urologists learn how to perform an ultrasound assessment of the urinary tract or the prostate whereas gastroenterologists focus their ultrasound ability on bowel and biliary.
Currently, based on emergency medicine requirements, the CUS training consist of an initial introduction followed by gaining experience throughout image acquisition, image interpretation and clinical integration and finally achieving competency. Different approaches and methods of teaching are available and often a combination of those is recommended in available curricula description. Many recommend reporting pathological CUS cases among ultrasound images compeeled in a logbook, either a certain amount (20% to 50%), either generically, in their core-ultrasound competency requirements. Although its benefit for emergency medicine clinical practice is substantial and evidence based, the introduction of CUS in emergency physicians' practice is evidently time consuming possibly due to theoretical and practical sessions requirements and assessments as well as bedside supervision. Several curricula recently included CUS to emergency medicine requirements program and more broadly to medical students' courses. This brings to a large number the need for CUS bedside teaching combined with other sources of competence achievement.
In an emergency clinical setting, the use of CUS for hepatobiliary assessment is mostly centered on inflammation and obstruction. Cholecystitis is known to be, from 95% to 99% of cases secondary to gallstones. Gallstones are accessible to CUS and, included in the clinical context, can strengthen the suspicion of cholecystitis. In a systematic review performed in 2011, the pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4% to 92.5%) and 88.0% (95% CI 83.7% to 91.4%), respectively for gallstones detection using EUS. This is consistent with this finding being valuable for clinical practice. Although some studies supported the number to achieve agreement with expert for gallbladder assessment to be 25 to 50, a prospective study including 1837 patients from 1999 to 2006, reported the learning curve of emergency physicians for the evaluation of gallbladder is poorly influenced by the number of bedside examinations. Those considerations suggest other sources of competency achievement should be evaluated rather than the number of examinations itself.
Classically, initial CUS introduction uses short lectures combined with demonstration, "hands-on" skill teaching, simulation sessions, discussions, web-based learning and practical scanning on volunteers, models and patients. Occasionally, pathological models are difficult to find and bedside teaching, apart from clinical shift, is exclusively possible on volunteers presenting a normal pattern. This enlightens the need for studies evaluating the CUS training pathway using exclusively healthy volunteers compared to the use of pathological findings during practical sessions. This is strengthen by the introduction of CUS courses among medical schools. Indeed, unlike residents or physicians, medical students don't have as much possibility to access practical CUS training on patients presenting pathological patterns.
The following study is meant to give insights about the CUS skills acquisition to accurately diagnose gallstones using exclusively training on healthy volunteers after a standardized web based theoretical teaching about pathological and non-pathological gallbladder CUS. This could support the use of only healthy volunteers during practical sessions. The teaching of pathological images recognition could exclusively be done throughout theoretical sessions. Although this would neither avoid the need for enhancing competencies bedside, neither avoid continuous logging activity and regular CUS continuing medical education, this could secondary help CUS teaching by reducing the need for bedside supervision during clinical shifts. Indeed, to knowledge, bedside supervision is difficult to achieve in some emergency departments and CUS fellows have trouble to properly fill out a " logbook ". Organizing CUS teaching around normal pattern recognition associated to a theoretical course presenting pathological findings could lead to change CUS fellows' assessment. Those could be evaluated theoretically using pathological ultrasound images or loops and could be evaluated practically on healthy volunteers. This would avoid compelling a " logbook " which can arise some ethical discussion about patient consent and use of images even if the latter are classically anonymized.
According to scope literature review, no randomized control study has been published establishing the skills acquisition for gallstones findings. This study being a pilot one, it will allow to precise the feasibility of a proper randomized control trial and to evaluate sample size. This study could also be the starting point of randomized control trials concerning the teaching of other pathological findings such as free fluid, aortic aneurism, cardiac assessment, hydronephrosis.
The Main objectives to evaluate if CUS skills to diagnose gallstones can be acquired by 5th year medical students naïve to CUS use exclusively throughout practical sessions on healthy volunteers after a standardized theoretical teaching using a web-based passive video learning.
The Trial design is a pilot double-blind randomized control trial. 20 participants are randomly assigned to CG or IG using pre-defined blocks of 10 participants per group. Consolidation of knowledge and skills' acquisition for gallbladder evaluation using CUS take place during 3 teaching sessions (day 0-10-30) given by CUS instructors on volunteers. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy (day 60) is performed at the end of the 2 months teaching period by two blinded examiners. The teaching is performed according to an expanding time interval as supported by a recent review.
Study members
--> Instructors Instructors are selected from the population of experts in CUS of the gallbladder in Belgium ; they are invited to participate via e-mail.
Each instructor receives a financial compensation for participating to the study.
Instructors are not blinded to participants' allocation. Instructors sign a "non-disclosure agreement" meaning they cannot give information to a third party during the entire duration of the study.
--> Volunteers Healthy volunteers are invited to participate by e-mail. Volunteers are selected using a web-based questionnaire asking for characteristics (age, sex, BMI).
Volunteers presenting a pathological gallbladder status (gallstones, sludge), are invited to participate throughout the consultation of surgery of the "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc", before an elective surgery is planned.
Volunteers are paired for age (+/- 5 years) and BMI (+/- 1) between groups to avoid selection bias.
Volunteers are eligible if:
- Between 18 and 70 years old
- Signed consent for participation and "non-disclosure agreement" 1 obtained
- Underwent a formal ultrasound previous to the study day in order to confirm gallbladder status (gallstones or sludge yes/no), performed by a CUS expert independent from the study
- Do not have persistent abdominal pain or cholecystitis symptoms Volunteers are committed to "non-disclosure agreement" about their gallbladder status during their participation to the study, except in case of medical consultation for personal matter.
- Examiners Two examiners, blinded to participant allocation, evaluate practical skills of participants for gallbladder assessment using CUS on day 60.
Examiners are international experts in CUS coming from United Kingdom.
- Conditions
- Gallstone
- Being tested
- Practical sessions to learn CUS exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder
- Medical subject headings
- Gallstones
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Practical sessions to learn CUS exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladderOther
The study days are 1 day apart for CG and IG but follow the exact same organization. Studytake place on day 0-10-30 (+/-2days). Practical sessions to learn CUS are organized either on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder or a pathological gallbladder (sludge, gallstones) (CG), either exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder (IG).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group IG | The IG is constituted of participants, naïve to ultrasound use. Participants undergo a web-based video learning about gallbladder evaluation using CUS on day 0 (same video as in CG). Participants undertake 3 times a one-day CUS course consisting in 2 practical sessions of 10 times 10 minutes on 10 healthy volunteers on day 0, day 7 and day 10. One practical session takes place before lunchtime, the second one after lunchtime.
Participants of IG don't have any contact with CG during study days. An evaluation is organized on day 60 to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. Receives: Other: Practical sessions to learn CUS exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder | |
| Control Group CG | The CG is constituted of participants, naïve to ultrasound use. Participants undergo a web-based video learning about gallbladder evaluation using CUS on day 0. Participants of CG undertake 2 practical CUS sessions of 10 times 10 minutes on 10 volunteers, at least 50% of them suffering from gallstones on day 0, day 7 and day 10. One session takes place before lunchtime, the second one after lunchtime. Participants of CG don't have any contact with IG during study days. An evaluation is organized on day 60 to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Diagnostic accuracy for gallstones according to practical teaching (IG or CG)
sensitivity and specificity for gallstones diagnosis
Measured: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Secondary outcomes (4)
Difference betweeen pre-test and post-test results
after watching a web based video teaching about clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Measured: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Confidence index for gallstones' diagnosis between Control Group (CG) and Intervention Group (IG).
Likert scale (0 = not confident --> 5 = perfectly confident)
Measured: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Time to get CUS image between CG and IG
Time to get the image
Measured: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Quality of the image between CG and IG
Image considered as interpretable or not by examiner
Measured: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 May 2021
- Study start12 Oct 2021
- Primary completion11 Dec 2021
- Study completion11 Dec 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for GallstoneStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de LouvainThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Dominique Vanpee, PhD, Study chair, Institut de recherche santé et société
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04879459
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CUS gallbladder
- Acronym
- RCTpCUS
- Status last verified
- Jan 2022
- First submitted
- 26 Apr 2021
- Last updated
- 1 Feb 2022
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Corresponding groups and names will be kept in a secured database of the trial centre. Except for study coordinator, no access to data will be possible for any other member of the study. A list of correspondence between study identification number and the other identifying data initially collected will be kept under the responsibility of the promoter. This list is kept for the statutory period of time provided for this type of research. The protection of the patient's personal data will be guaranteed according to the European General Data Protection Regulation of 27 April 2016 (in application since 25 May 2018), to the Belgian Law of 30 July 2018 on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data and to the Belgian Law of 22 August 2002 on the rights of the patient.
Publications
American College of Emergency Physicians. American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP emergency ultrasound guidelines-2001. Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Oct;38(4):470-81. No abstract available.
PubMed 11574810Ultrasound Guidelines: Emergency, Point-of-Care and Clinical Ultrasound Guidelines in Medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2017 May;69(5):e27-e54. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.08.457. No abstract available.
PubMed 28442101Atkinson P, Bowra J, Lambert M, Lamprecht H, Noble V, Jarman B. International Federation for Emergency Medicine point of care ultrasound curriculum. CJEM. 2015 Mar;17(2):161-70. doi: 10.1017/cem.2015.8.
PubMed 26052968Back SJ, Darge K, Bedoya MA, Delgado J, Gorfu Y, Zewdneh D, Reid JR. Ultrasound Tutorials in Under 10 Minutes: Experience and Results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Sep;207(3):653-60. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16402. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
PubMed 27276225Dinh VA, Lakoff D, Hess J, Bahner DP, Hoppmann R, Blaivas M, Pellerito JS, Abuhamad A, Khandelwal S. Medical Student Core Clinical Ultrasound Milestones: A Consensus Among Directors in the United States. J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Feb;35(2):421-34. doi: 10.7863/ultra.15.07080. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
PubMed 26782162Gaspari RJ, Dickman E, Blehar D. Learning curve of bedside ultrasound of the gallbladder. J Emerg Med. 2009 Jul;37(1):51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.10.070. Epub 2008 Apr 25.
PubMed 18439787Jain A, Mehta N, Secko M, Schechter J, Papanagnou D, Pandya S, Sinert R. History, Physical Examination, Laboratory Testing, and Emergency Department Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Acute Cholecystitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2017 Mar;24(3):281-297. doi: 10.1111/acem.13132.
PubMed 27862628Jang TB, Ruggeri W, Dyne P, Kaji AH. The learning curve of resident physicians using emergency ultrasonography for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;17(11):1247-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00909.x.
PubMed 21175524Lewis D, Rang L, Kim D, Robichaud L, Kwan C, Pham C, Shefrin A, Ritcey B, Atkinson P, Woo M, Jelic T, Dallaire G, Henneberry R, Turner J, Andani R, Demsey R, Olszynski P. Recommendations for the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) by emergency physicians in Canada. CJEM. 2019 Nov;21(6):721-726. doi: 10.1017/cem.2019.392. No abstract available.
PubMed 31771691Lewiss RE, Pearl M, Nomura JT, Baty G, Bengiamin R, Duprey K, Stone M, Theodoro D, Akhtar S. CORD-AEUS: consensus document for the emergency ultrasound milestone project. Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Jul;20(7):740-5. doi: 10.1111/acem.12164.
PubMed 23859589Mengel-Jorgensen T, Jensen MB. Variation in the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in various European countries. Results of a survey among experts. Eur J Gen Pract. 2016 Dec;22(4):274-277. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2016.1211105. Epub 2016 Aug 3.
PubMed 27487159Olszynski P, Kim D, Chenkin J, Rang L. The core emergency ultrasound curriculum project: A report from the Curriculum Working Group of the CAEP Emergency Ultrasound Committee. CJEM. 2018 Mar;20(2):176-182. doi: 10.1017/cem.2017.44. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
PubMed 28625217Rempell JS, Saldana F, DiSalvo D, Kumar N, Stone MB, Chan W, Luz J, Noble VE, Liteplo A, Kimberly H, Kohler MJ. Pilot Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum at Harvard Medical School: Early Experience. West J Emerg Med. 2016 Nov;17(6):734-740. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2016.8.31387. Epub 2016 Sep 12.
PubMed 27833681Ross M, Brown M, McLaughlin K, Atkinson P, Thompson J, Powelson S, Clark S, Lang E. Emergency physician-performed ultrasound to diagnose cholelithiasis: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Mar;18(3):227-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01012.x.
PubMed 21401784Salmon M, Landes M, Hunchak C, Paluku J, Malemo Kalisya L, Salmon C, Muller MM, Wachira B, Mangan J, Chhaganlal K, Kalanzi J, Azazh A, Berman S, Zied ES, Lamprecht H. Getting It Right the First Time: Defining Regionally Relevant Training Curricula and Provider Core Competencies for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Education on the African Continent. Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Feb;69(2):218-226. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.07.030. Epub 2016 Dec 11.
PubMed 27974170
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Feb 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Impact on Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Ultrasound Practical Teaching Exclusively Using Normal Gallbladder Patterns, a Pilot Double Blind Randomized Control Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04879459
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RCTpCUS / CUS gallbladder
- Conditions
- Gallstone
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de LouvainUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 12 Oct 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 11 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 11 Dec 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 May 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This research proposal is a pilot double-blind randomized control trial evaluating the impact on diagnostic accuracy of a Clinical UltraSound (CUS) teaching for gallbladder assessment using exclusively healthy volunteers for practical sessions. Classically, a number of 25 to 50 CUS of the gallbladder is reported to achieve competency. Many CUS curricula or guidelines recommend reporting pathological cases, either a certain amount, either generically, in their core-ultrasound competency requirements. Using healthy volunteers is rarely meant to verify the hypothesis that practical sessions based on exclusively normal patterns combined with presentation of pathological ultrasound loops or images during theoretical sessions, could further allow reaching diagnostic accuracy requirements in clinical practice. In the present study, participants will be medical students in their 5th year, naïve to CUS use. Participants will be randomly be distributed between a control group undergoing a standard practical teaching on models presenting uncomplicated gallstones or normal gallbladder (no gallstones), and an intervention group undergoing a practical teaching exclusively on models presenting a normal gallbladder. Participants will be "blinded" to study endpoints as well as to group allocation. After three days of practical teaching on day 0-10-30, students will be evaluated on day 60 by 2 external investigators blinded to students group allocation. Diagnostic accuracy for gallstones will be measured using sensitivity and specificity. Statistical analysis will be performed blinded to students' name using IBM SPSS statistics 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). As is classical, the statistical tests will be rejected whenever the observed p-value is smaller than 0.05. Corrections for multiple testing will be used. A comparable diagnostic accuracy between groups could further support the use of healthy volunteers during practical teaching and ease clinical ultrasound curricula. Such a finding wouldn't however carry away the need for enhancing competencies during clinical practice or the need for continuing medical education, as for any medical procedure.
Detailed description
Background Critical care and emergency medicine are both specialties covering all types of pathologies concerning multiple etiologies and systems. Clinical UltraSound (CUS) curricula concerning those specialties are accordingly covering a wide range of ultrasound improved clinical examination. Recently, a questionnaire sent to American medical schools, reporting 84% response rate, enlightened that 55% of the clinical ultrasound course directors are emergency physicians. This supports the great implication of emergency medicine in CUS development.
In 2015, the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) Point of Care UltraSound (PoCUS) published an evidence-based consensus document for CUS curriculum based on national and international guidelines. Previously, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Director-Academy of Emergency Ultrasound (CORD-AEUS) consensus established guidelines to organize CUS training and assess resident competencies. To actual knowledge, although CUS training programs around the globe support the use of specific training to achieve CUS introduction in the emergency departments endorsing its use, there are still significant variations among proposed curricula. The training requirements are mostly described for core-ultrasound. Generally, core-ultrasound curricula encompass the skill acquisition of extended-Focused Assessment Sonography for Trauma (e-FAST), Aortic Aneurysm Assessment (AAA), basic cardiac and lung ultrasound and basic procedural ultrasound. Some include biliary and urinary tract assessment whereas others consider biliary and urinary tract assessment part of advanced CUS teaching. Most other specialties however focus their ultrasound teaching on the field of interest. For instance, urologists learn how to perform an ultrasound assessment of the urinary tract or the prostate whereas gastroenterologists focus their ultrasound ability on bowel and biliary.
Currently, based on emergency medicine requirements, the CUS training consist of an initial introduction followed by gaining experience throughout image acquisition, image interpretation and clinical integration and finally achieving competency. Different approaches and methods of teaching are available and often a combination of those is recommended in available curricula description. Many recommend reporting pathological CUS cases among ultrasound images compeeled in a logbook, either a certain amount (20% to 50%), either generically, in their core-ultrasound competency requirements. Although its benefit for emergency medicine clinical practice is substantial and evidence based, the introduction of CUS in emergency physicians' practice is evidently time consuming possibly due to theoretical and practical sessions requirements and assessments as well as bedside supervision. Several curricula recently included CUS to emergency medicine requirements program and more broadly to medical students' courses. This brings to a large number the need for CUS bedside teaching combined with other sources of competence achievement.
In an emergency clinical setting, the use of CUS for hepatobiliary assessment is mostly centered on inflammation and obstruction. Cholecystitis is known to be, from 95% to 99% of cases secondary to gallstones. Gallstones are accessible to CUS and, included in the clinical context, can strengthen the suspicion of cholecystitis. In a systematic review performed in 2011, the pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4% to 92.5%) and 88.0% (95% CI 83.7% to 91.4%), respectively for gallstones detection using EUS. This is consistent with this finding being valuable for clinical practice. Although some studies supported the number to achieve agreement with expert for gallbladder assessment to be 25 to 50, a prospective study including 1837 patients from 1999 to 2006, reported the learning curve of emergency physicians for the evaluation of gallbladder is poorly influenced by the number of bedside examinations. Those considerations suggest other sources of competency achievement should be evaluated rather than the number of examinations itself.
Classically, initial CUS introduction uses short lectures combined with demonstration, "hands-on" skill teaching, simulation sessions, discussions, web-based learning and practical scanning on volunteers, models and patients. Occasionally, pathological models are difficult to find and bedside teaching, apart from clinical shift, is exclusively possible on volunteers presenting a normal pattern. This enlightens the need for studies evaluating the CUS training pathway using exclusively healthy volunteers compared to the use of pathological findings during practical sessions. This is strengthen by the introduction of CUS courses among medical schools. Indeed, unlike residents or physicians, medical students don't have as much possibility to access practical CUS training on patients presenting pathological patterns.
The following study is meant to give insights about the CUS skills acquisition to accurately diagnose gallstones using exclusively training on healthy volunteers after a standardized web based theoretical teaching about pathological and non-pathological gallbladder CUS. This could support the use of only healthy volunteers during practical sessions. The teaching of pathological images recognition could exclusively be done throughout theoretical sessions. Although this would neither avoid the need for enhancing competencies bedside, neither avoid continuous logging activity and regular CUS continuing medical education, this could secondary help CUS teaching by reducing the need for bedside supervision during clinical shifts. Indeed, to knowledge, bedside supervision is difficult to achieve in some emergency departments and CUS fellows have trouble to properly fill out a " logbook ". Organizing CUS teaching around normal pattern recognition associated to a theoretical course presenting pathological findings could lead to change CUS fellows' assessment. Those could be evaluated theoretically using pathological ultrasound images or loops and could be evaluated practically on healthy volunteers. This would avoid compelling a " logbook " which can arise some ethical discussion about patient consent and use of images even if the latter are classically anonymized.
According to scope literature review, no randomized control study has been published establishing the skills acquisition for gallstones findings. This study being a pilot one, it will allow to precise the feasibility of a proper randomized control trial and to evaluate sample size. This study could also be the starting point of randomized control trials concerning the teaching of other pathological findings such as free fluid, aortic aneurism, cardiac assessment, hydronephrosis.
The Main objectives to evaluate if CUS skills to diagnose gallstones can be acquired by 5th year medical students naïve to CUS use exclusively throughout practical sessions on healthy volunteers after a standardized theoretical teaching using a web-based passive video learning.
The Trial design is a pilot double-blind randomized control trial. 20 participants are randomly assigned to CG or IG using pre-defined blocks of 10 participants per group. Consolidation of knowledge and skills' acquisition for gallbladder evaluation using CUS take place during 3 teaching sessions (day 0-10-30) given by CUS instructors on volunteers. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy (day 60) is performed at the end of the 2 months teaching period by two blinded examiners. The teaching is performed according to an expanding time interval as supported by a recent review.
Study members
--> Instructors Instructors are selected from the population of experts in CUS of the gallbladder in Belgium ; they are invited to participate via e-mail.
Each instructor receives a financial compensation for participating to the study.
Instructors are not blinded to participants' allocation. Instructors sign a "non-disclosure agreement" meaning they cannot give information to a third party during the entire duration of the study.
--> Volunteers Healthy volunteers are invited to participate by e-mail. Volunteers are selected using a web-based questionnaire asking for characteristics (age, sex, BMI).
Volunteers presenting a pathological gallbladder status (gallstones, sludge), are invited to participate throughout the consultation of surgery of the "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc", before an elective surgery is planned.
Volunteers are paired for age (+/- 5 years) and BMI (+/- 1) between groups to avoid selection bias.
Volunteers are eligible if:
- Between 18 and 70 years old
- Signed consent for participation and "non-disclosure agreement" 1 obtained
- Underwent a formal ultrasound previous to the study day in order to confirm gallbladder status (gallstones or sludge yes/no), performed by a CUS expert independent from the study
- Do not have persistent abdominal pain or cholecystitis symptoms Volunteers are committed to "non-disclosure agreement" about their gallbladder status during their participation to the study, except in case of medical consultation for personal matter.
- Examiners Two examiners, blinded to participant allocation, evaluate practical skills of participants for gallbladder assessment using CUS on day 60.
Examiners are international experts in CUS coming from United Kingdom.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group IG | – | Other: Practical sessions to learn CUS exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladderThe IG is constituted of participants, naïve to ultrasound use. Participants undergo a web-based video learning about gallbladder evaluation using CUS on day 0 (same video as in CG). Participants undertake 3 times a one-day CUS course consisting in 2 practical sessions of 10 times 10 minutes on 10 healthy volunteers on day 0, day 7 and day 10. One practical session takes place before lunchtime, the second one after lunchtime. Participants of IG don't have any contact with CG during study days. An evaluation is organized on day 60 to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. |
| Control Group CG | – | –The CG is constituted of participants, naïve to ultrasound use. Participants undergo a web-based video learning about gallbladder evaluation using CUS on day 0. Participants of CG undertake 2 practical CUS sessions of 10 times 10 minutes on 10 volunteers, at least 50% of them suffering from gallstones on day 0, day 7 and day 10. One session takes place before lunchtime, the second one after lunchtime. Participants of CG don't have any contact with IG during study days. An evaluation is organized on day 60 to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 100 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Medical students →Participants An e-mail invitation is send three times over a two weeks period for participants enrollment. Participants are selected among medical students in their 5th year (Master 2). If e-mail is not sufficient, participants are invited during a medical course given in Université Catholique de Louvain. Medical students are invited to answer to a questionnaire defining their CUS use status (naïve or not) to assess for eligibility.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- ≥ 18 years of age
- 5th year medical students
- Considered naïve to CUS
- Signed consent and signed non-disclosure agreement obtained
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Unable to use CUS due to a disability
- Prior CUS skills
- ∗ Secondary exclusion criteria
- Unable to use CUS due to a new disability
- Unable to complete the four study days
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Practical sessions to learn CUS exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladderThe study days are 1 day apart for CG and IG but follow the exact same organization. Studytake place on day 0-10-30 (+/-2days). Practical sessions to learn CUS are organized either on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder or a pathological gallbladder (sludge, gallstones) (CG), either exclusively on volunteers presenting a healthy gallbladder (IG). | Other | Intervention Group IG |
Primary outcome
Diagnostic accuracy for gallstones according to practical teaching (IG or CG)
Time frame: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
sensitivity and specificity for gallstones diagnosis
4 secondary outcomes
Difference betweeen pre-test and post-test results
Time frame: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Confidence index for gallstones' diagnosis between Control Group (CG) and Intervention Group (IG).
Time frame: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Time to get CUS image between CG and IG
Time frame: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Quality of the image between CG and IG
Time frame: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Feb 2022.
- Background: PubMed 11574810American College of Emergency Physicians. American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP emergency ultrasound guidelines-2001. Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Oct;38(4):470-81. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 28442101Ultrasound Guidelines: Emergency, Point-of-Care and Clinical Ultrasound Guidelines in Medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2017 May;69(5):e27-e54. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.08.457. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26052968Atkinson P, Bowra J, Lambert M, Lamprecht H, Noble V, Jarman B. International Federation for Emergency Medicine point of care ultrasound curriculum. CJEM. 2015 Mar;17(2):161-70. doi: 10.1017/cem.2015.8.
- Background: PubMed 27276225Back SJ, Darge K, Bedoya MA, Delgado J, Gorfu Y, Zewdneh D, Reid JR. Ultrasound Tutorials in Under 10 Minutes: Experience and Results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Sep;207(3):653-60. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16402. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
- Background: PubMed 26782162Dinh VA, Lakoff D, Hess J, Bahner DP, Hoppmann R, Blaivas M, Pellerito JS, Abuhamad A, Khandelwal S. Medical Student Core Clinical Ultrasound Milestones: A Consensus Among Directors in the United States. J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Feb;35(2):421-34. doi: 10.7863/ultra.15.07080. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
- Background: PubMed 18439787Gaspari RJ, Dickman E, Blehar D. Learning curve of bedside ultrasound of the gallbladder. J Emerg Med. 2009 Jul;37(1):51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.10.070. Epub 2008 Apr 25.
- Background: PubMed 27862628Jain A, Mehta N, Secko M, Schechter J, Papanagnou D, Pandya S, Sinert R. History, Physical Examination, Laboratory Testing, and Emergency Department Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Acute Cholecystitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2017 Mar;24(3):281-297. doi: 10.1111/acem.13132.
- Background: PubMed 21175524Jang TB, Ruggeri W, Dyne P, Kaji AH. The learning curve of resident physicians using emergency ultrasonography for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;17(11):1247-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00909.x.
- Background: PubMed 31771691Lewis D, Rang L, Kim D, Robichaud L, Kwan C, Pham C, Shefrin A, Ritcey B, Atkinson P, Woo M, Jelic T, Dallaire G, Henneberry R, Turner J, Andani R, Demsey R, Olszynski P. Recommendations for the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) by emergency physicians in Canada. CJEM. 2019 Nov;21(6):721-726. doi: 10.1017/cem.2019.392. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 23859589Lewiss RE, Pearl M, Nomura JT, Baty G, Bengiamin R, Duprey K, Stone M, Theodoro D, Akhtar S. CORD-AEUS: consensus document for the emergency ultrasound milestone project. Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Jul;20(7):740-5. doi: 10.1111/acem.12164.
- Background: PubMed 27487159Mengel-Jorgensen T, Jensen MB. Variation in the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice in various European countries. Results of a survey among experts. Eur J Gen Pract. 2016 Dec;22(4):274-277. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2016.1211105. Epub 2016 Aug 3.
- Background: PubMed 28625217Olszynski P, Kim D, Chenkin J, Rang L. The core emergency ultrasound curriculum project: A report from the Curriculum Working Group of the CAEP Emergency Ultrasound Committee. CJEM. 2018 Mar;20(2):176-182. doi: 10.1017/cem.2017.44. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
- Credentialing For Emergency Medicine UltrasonographyLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Corresponding groups and names will be kept in a secured database of the trial centre. Except for study coordinator, no access to data will be possible for any other member of the study. A list of correspondence between study identification number and the other identifying data initially collected will be kept under the responsibility of the promoter. This list is kept for the statutory period of time provided for this type of research. The protection of the patient's personal data will be guaranteed according to the European General Data Protection Regulation of 27 April 2016 (in application since 25 May 2018), to the Belgian Law of 30 July 2018 on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data and to the Belgian Law of 22 August 2002 on the rights of the patient.
Related trials for Gallstone
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Prophylactic Dexamethasone vs Placebo on Airway Dimensions Assessed by Ultrasonography in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Airway Edema, Postoperative Complications
Not yet recruiting
Two Bupivacaine Concentrations for Recto-Intercostal Fascial Plane Block After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Postoperative Pain, Acute Pain
Active, not recruiting
Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Analgesic Strategies for Pain Control After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC)
Gallstones, Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Electrosurgical Patterns and Learning Curve in Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Cholelithiasis
Recruiting
Timing of CHolecystectomy In Severe PAncreatitis
Acute Pancreatitis, Cholelithiasis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Dominique Vanpee, PhD study chair
Institut de recherche santé et société
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Gallstone, run by Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de Louvain at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Feb 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Diagnostic accuracy for gallstones according to practical teaching (IG or CG) (time frame: Each participants will be evaluated at day 60 during a session of 20 minutes using volunteers for clinical ultrasound of the gallbladder). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04879459, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Feb 2022.