Trial Outcomes & Findings for Evaluation of a Pocket-Sized Ultrasound Device As an Aid to the Physical Examination (NCT NCT01948076)
NCT ID: NCT01948076
Last Updated: 2015-03-19
Results Overview
The primary outcome is a comparison of the diagnostic ability of the intervention group as recorded after performing an ultrasound exam and the control group using traditional physical examination techniques. We compared the two groups using the average physical findings correctly identified as present or absent as reflected by a "Present Score" (average # of findings identified out of 17 possible findings) and "Absent Score" (average # of findings identified out of 95 possible). The former is a gauge of a resident's ability to correctly identify present abnormalities while the latter is an assessment of correctly identifying a normal examination when findings are absent. The residents used a examination form to indicate whether or not they felt the physical abnormality was present or absent and how confident he or she was in their answer. This was compared with the gold standard which was presence or absence of the abnormality on professional ultrasound.
COMPLETED
NA
40 participants
one month
2015-03-19
Participant Flow
Beginning in Septemeber 2012 all internal medicine residents at Brigham and Women's hospital were invited to participate and the first 40 residents to respond to email advertisement were enrolled.
Residents with formal ultrasound training were to be excluded but none of the potential participants had had formal training.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Control Group
Performed only physical exam with no access to ultrasoun
|
Intervention Group
Received training and access to ultrasounds. During assessment performed physical exam first followed by ultrasound exam
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
20
|
20
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
20
|
19
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
1
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Control Group
Performed only physical exam with no access to ultrasoun
|
Intervention Group
Received training and access to ultrasounds. During assessment performed physical exam first followed by ultrasound exam
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
0
|
1
|
Baseline Characteristics
Evaluation of a Pocket-Sized Ultrasound Device As an Aid to the Physical Examination
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Resident Without GE Vscan
n=20 Participants
baseline physical exam use
|
Resident With GE Vscan
n=20 Participants
residents with augmentation of physical exam by ultrasound
|
Total
n=40 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
20 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
40 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Age, Continuous
|
29.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.3 • n=99 Participants
|
29.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.9 • n=107 Participants
|
29.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 • n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
8 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
12 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
20 participants
n=99 Participants
|
20 participants
n=107 Participants
|
40 participants
n=206 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: one monthPopulation: All residents were analyzed. There was one withdrawal due to family emergency
The primary outcome is a comparison of the diagnostic ability of the intervention group as recorded after performing an ultrasound exam and the control group using traditional physical examination techniques. We compared the two groups using the average physical findings correctly identified as present or absent as reflected by a "Present Score" (average # of findings identified out of 17 possible findings) and "Absent Score" (average # of findings identified out of 95 possible). The former is a gauge of a resident's ability to correctly identify present abnormalities while the latter is an assessment of correctly identifying a normal examination when findings are absent. The residents used a examination form to indicate whether or not they felt the physical abnormality was present or absent and how confident he or she was in their answer. This was compared with the gold standard which was presence or absence of the abnormality on professional ultrasound.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Resident Without GE Vscan
n=20 Participants
baseline physical exam use
|
Resident With GE Vscan
n=19 Participants
residents with augmentation of physical exam by ultrasound
|
|---|---|---|
|
Comparison of Diagnostic Ability of the Intervention Group's Ultrasound Exam to the Control Group's Physical Exam
Present Score
|
6.4 units on a scale
Interval 5.0 to 8.0
|
7.6 units on a scale
Interval 5.0 to 9.0
|
|
Comparison of Diagnostic Ability of the Intervention Group's Ultrasound Exam to the Control Group's Physical Exam
Absent Score
|
79.6 units on a scale
Interval 74.5 to 84.5
|
79.3 units on a scale
Interval 78.0 to 86.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: one monthFor the secondary outcome, we assessed whether there was an improvement in the diagnostic ability of those in the intervention group using traditional physical examination techniques as compared to using the ultrasound device. We compared the two arms using the average physical findings correctly identified as present or absent as reflected by a "Present Score" (average # of findings identified out of 17 possible findings) and "Absent Score" (average # of findings identified out of 95 possible). The residents used a examination form to indicate whether or not they felt the physical abnormality was present or absent using their physical exam alone and then again after using the ultrasound. This was compared with the gold standard which was presence or absence of the abnormality on professional ultrasound.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Resident Without GE Vscan
n=19 Participants
baseline physical exam use
|
Resident With GE Vscan
n=19 Participants
residents with augmentation of physical exam by ultrasound
|
|---|---|---|
|
Improvement in Diagnostic Ability Within the Intervention Group
Present Score
|
6.7 units on a scale
Interval 5.0 to 9.0
|
7.6 units on a scale
Interval 5.0 to 9.0
|
|
Improvement in Diagnostic Ability Within the Intervention Group
Absent Score
|
79.3 units on a scale
Interval 78.0 to 86.0
|
79.1 units on a scale
Interval 78.0 to 87.0
|
Adverse Events
Resident Without GE Vscan
Resident With GE Vscan
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place