Measurement and Normal Values, Pathologies, Interpretation of findings, and Interventional Ultrasound as part of student ultrasound education

Abstract

Ultrasound diagnostics is a widely used, radiation-free, cost-effective, and bedside-applicable imaging technique. Given its numerous advantages and broad application, it appears reasonable to integrate practical use and theory into medical education at an early stage. Since the content of student ultrasound courses varies significantly on an international scale, the aim of this paper is to establish foundations for a more standardized approach to student’s ultrasound education (SUSE) especially with focus on abdominal ultrasound. This review examines to what extent measurements can be effectively incorporated into student ultrasound training and under which conditions the teaching of pathologies should be included in these courses. Additionally, the handling of false-positive and false-negative findings in student training is discussed. Considering the growing relevance of interventional ultrasound (INVUS), the paper further explores the extent to which interventional procedures should already be taught during SUSE.

Zusammenfassung

Die Ultraschalldiagnostik ist eine weitverbreitete, strahlenfreie, kostengünstige und am Patientenbett durchführbare Untersuchungstechnik. Angesichts ihrer vielfältigen Vorteile und der breiten Anwendung erscheint es sinnvoll, die praktische Durchführung und Theorie der Sonografie frühzeitig in die medizinische Ausbildung zu integrieren. Da die Inhalte studentischer Ultraschallkurse international stark variieren, besteht das Ziel dieser Arbeit darin, Grundlagen für eine standardisierte Gestaltung der Lehre insbesondere in Bezug auf die Abdomensonografie zu erarbeiten. Diese Übersicht untersucht, inwieweit didaktisch standardisierte Messungen sinnvoll in die studentische Ultraschalllehre integriert werden können und unter welchen Bedingungen die Vermittlung von Pathologien im Rahmen dieser Kurse erfolgen sollte. Darüber hinaus wird der Umgang mit falsch-positiven und falsch-negativen Befunden in der studentischen Ausbildung thematisiert. Angesichts der zunehmenden Bedeutung des interventionellen Ultraschalls (INVUS) wird zudem diskutiert, in welchem Umfang interventionelle Verfahren bereits in der studentischen Ultraschalllehre gelehrt werden sollten.

Keywords

Ultrasound - Medical Student - Pathology - Measurement - Interventional Ultrasound

Schlüsselwörter

Ultraschall - Student - Pathologie - Messungen - Interventioneller Ultraschall

Publication History

Received: 30 September 2024

Accepted after revision: 20 February 2025

Article published online:
13 May 2025

• References

• 1 Dietrich CF, Hoffmann B, Abramowicz J. et al. Medical Student Ultrasound Education: A WFUMB Position Paper, Part I. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45: 271-281
• 2 Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Badea R. et al. EFSUMB Statement on Medical Student Education in Ultrasound [long version]. Ultrasound Int Open 2016; 2: E2-E7
• 3 Dietrich CF, Șirli R, Barth G. et al. Student Ultrasound Education, current views and controversies. Ultraschall 2024;
• 4 Neubauer R, Bauer CJ, Dietrich CF. et al. Evidence-based Ultrasound Education? – A Systematic Literature Review of Undergraduate Ultrasound Training Studies. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10
• 5 Hoppmann RA, Mladenovic J, Melniker L. et al. International consensus conference recommendations on ultrasound education for undergraduate medical students. Ultrasound J 2022; 14: 31
• 6 Davis JJ, Wessner CE, Potts J. et al. Ultrasonography in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Journal of ultrasound in medicine: official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 2018; 37: 2667-2679
• 7 Feilchenfeld Z, Dornan T, Whitehead C. et al. Ultrasound in undergraduate medical education: a systematic and critical review. Medical education 2017; 51: 366-378
• 8 Kenny EJG, Makwana HN, Thankachan M. et al. The Use of Ultrasound in Undergraduate Medical Anatomy Education: a Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis. Med Sci Educ 2022; 32: 1195-1208
• 9 Duarte ML, Santos LRD, Iared W. et al. Comparison of ultrasonography learning between distance teaching and traditional methodology. An educational systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J 2022; 140: 806-817
• 10 DeBiasio C, Pageau P, Shefrin A. et al. Point-of-Care-ultrasound in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review of assessment methods. Ultrasound J 2023; 15: 30
• 11 Tarique U, Tang B, Singh M. et al. Ultrasound Curricula in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review. Journal of ultrasound in medicine: official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 2018; 37: 69-82
• 12 Birrane J, Misran H, Creaney M. et al. A scoping review of ultrasound teaching in undergraduate medical education. Medical Science Educator 2018; 28: 45-56
• 13 Hoffmann B, Blaivas M, Abramowicz J. et al. Medical Student Ultrasound Education, a WFUMB Position Paper, Part II. A consensus statement of ultrasound societies. Med Ultrason 2020; 22: 220-229
• 14 Winter L, Neubauer R, Weimer J. et al. Peer teachers as ultrasound instructors? – a systematic literature review of peer teaching concepts in undergraduate ultrasound education. BMC Med Educ 2024; 24: 1369
• 15 Recker F, Neubauer R, Dong Y. et al. Exploring the dynamics of ultrasound training in medical education: current trends, debates, and approaches to didactics and hands-on learning. BMC Med Educ 2024; 24: 1311
• 16 Neubauer R, Bauer CJ, Dietrich CF. et al. Evidence-based Ultrasound Education? – A Systematic Literature Review of Undergraduate Ultrasound Training Studies. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10
• 17 Daum N, Blaivas M, Goudie A. et al. Student ultrasound education, current view and controversies. Role of Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and telemedicine. Ultrasound J 2024; 16: 44
• 18 Barth G, Prosch H, Blaivas M. et al. Student Ultrasound Education, Current Views and Controversies; Who Should be Teaching?. Z Gastroenterol 2024; 62: 1718-1723
• 19 Dietrich CF, Sirli RL, Barth G. et al. Student ultrasound education – current views and controversies. Ultraschall Med 2024; 45: 389-394
• 20 Given LM. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods: Sage publications. 2008
• 21 Sienz M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Reference values in abdominal ultrasound – liver and liver vessels. ZGastroenterol 2010; 48: 1141-1152
• 22 Sienz M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Reference values in abdominal ultrasound – biliopancreatic system and spleen. ZGastroenterol 2011; 49: 845-870
• 23 Sienz M, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Sonography today: reference values in abdominal ultrasound: aorta, inferior vena cava, kidneys. Z Gastroenterol 2012; 50: 293-315
• 24 Obrycki Ł, Sarnecki J, Lichosik M. et al. Kidney length normative values in children aged 0–19 years – a multicenter study. Pediatric Nephrology 2022; 37: 1075-1085
• 25 Dietrich CF, Nolsoe CP, Barr RG. et al. Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver-Update 2020 WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020; 46: 2579-2604
• 26 Bailitz J, O’Brien J, McCauley M. et al. Development of an expert consensus checklist for emergency ultrasound. AEM Educ Train 2022; 6
• 27 Moller K, Fischer P, Gilja OH. et al. Gastrointestinal Ultrasound – measurements and normal findings. What do you need to know?. Dig Dis 2025; 1-95
• 28 Wang Y, Tian XF, Cheng J. et al. Normal value of virtual touch imaging quantification elastography in measurements of pancreas. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2024;
• 29 Srivastava S, Dighe M, Moller K. et al. Ultrasound measurements and normal findings in the thyroid gland. Med Ultrason 2024;
• 30 Lucius C, Meier J, Gschmack A. et al. Ultrasound of the spleen – an update on measurements, reference values, and influencing factors. A systematic review. Med Ultrason 2024;
• 31 Meier J, Lucius C, Moller K. et al. Pancreatic ultrasound: An update of measurements, reference values, and variations of the pancreas. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10
• 32 Edwards H, Smith J, Weston M. What makes a good ultrasound report?. Ultrasound 2014; 22: 57-60
• 33 Necas M. The clinical ultrasound report: Guideline for sonographers. Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2018; 21: 9-23
• 34 Necas M. The clinical ultrasound report: Guideline for sonographers. Australas J Ultrasound Med 2018; 21: 9-23
• 35 Dietrich CF, Goudie A, Chiorean L. et al. Point of Care Ultrasound: A WFUMB Position Paper. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43: 49-58
• 36 Piscaglia F, Dietrich C, Nolsoe C. et al. Birth of “Echoscopy” – The EFSUMB Point of View. Ultraschall 2013; 2013: 92
• 37 Bentley S, Mudan G, Strother C. et al. Are Live Ultrasound Models Replaceable? Traditional versus Simulated Education Module for FAST Exam. The western journal of emergency medicine 2015; 16: 818-822
• 38 Blank V, Strobel D, Karlas T. Digital Training Formats in Ultrasound Diagnostics for physicians: What options are available and how can they be successfully integrated into current DEGUM certified course concepts?. Ultraschall Med 2022; 43: 428-434
• 39 Sim JH, Thoirs K. Understanding Sonography Clinical Decision-Making Learning Through Student Voices. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 2017; 33: 184-191
• 40 Thoirs K, Sim J. Using a clinical decision‐making framework to foster sonographer student learning in the clinical setting. Sonography 2016; 3: 146-153
• 41 Dietrich CF, Fraser AG, Dong Y. et al. Managing Incidental Findings Reported by Medical, Sonography and Other Students Performing Educational Ultrasound Examinations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2022; 48: 180-187
• 42 Daum N, Blaivas M, Goudie A. et al. Student ultrasound education, current view and controversies. Role of Artificial Intelligence, virtual Reality and telemedicine. The Ultrasound Journal 2024;
• 43 Eder N, Daum N, Seckinger DA. et al. A National Register for Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS) in Germany: Outline and Preliminary Results of a Pilot Study. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 2022; 48: S76
• 44 Dietrich CF, Horn R, Morf S. et al. Ultrasound-guided central vascular interventions, comments on the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology guidelines on interventional ultrasound. J Thorac Dis 2016; 8: E851-E868
• 45 Dietrich CF, Horn R, Morf S. et al. US-guided peripheral vascular interventions, comments on the EFSUMB guidelines. Med Ultrason 2016; 18: 231-239
• 46 Adrian RJ, Choi A, Lamba S. et al. Teaching Module on Ultrasound-Guided Venous Access Using a Homemade Gel Model for Fourth-Year Medical Students. MedEdPORTAL 2022; 18: 11222
• 47 Armson AM, Moynihan R, Stafford N. et al. Ultrasound-guided cannulation for medical students. Clin Teach 2021; 18: 295-300
• 48 Vitto MJ, Myers M, Vitto CM. et al. Perceived Difficulty and Success Rate of Standard Versus Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation in a Novice Study Group: A Randomized Crossover Trial. Journal of ultrasound in medicine: official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 2016; 35: 895-898
• 49 Weimer AM, Weimer JM, Berthold S. et al. Shoulder and Knee Arthroscopy Access Point: Prospective Comparison of Sonographic and Palpatory Detection – Which Method is Better for Novices?. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10
• 50 Phillips H, Franklin C, Brearley J. et al. Natural ballistic gelatine ultrasound phantoms are suitable to be used for student education and can be produced cheaply and effectively. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2023;
• 51 Armstrong SA, Jafary R, Forsythe JS. et al. Tissue-Mimicking Materials for Ultrasound-Guided Needle Intervention Phantoms: A Comprehensive Review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2023; 49: 18-30