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.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

40 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

one month

Results posted on

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

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

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

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 month

Population: 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

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 month

For 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

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

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Resident With GE Vscan

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Maria Yialamas

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Phone: 617-732-5500

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place