↓ Skip to main content

International consensus conference recommendations on ultrasound education for undergraduate medical students

Overview of attention for article published in The Ultrasound Journal, July 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 147)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
109 tweeters


4 Dimensions

Readers on

54 Mendeley
International consensus conference recommendations on ultrasound education for undergraduate medical students
Published in
The Ultrasound Journal, July 2022
DOI 10.1186/s13089-022-00279-1
Pubmed ID

Richard A. Hoppmann, Jeanette Mladenovic, Lawrence Melniker, Radu Badea, Michael Blaivas, Miguel Montorfano, Alfred Abuhamad, Vicki Noble, Arif Hussain, Gregor Prosen, Tomás Villen, Gabriele Via, Ramon Nogue, Craig Goodmurphy, Marcus Bastos, G. Stephen Nace, Giovanni Volpicelli, Richard J. Wakefield, Steve Wilson, Anjali Bhagra, Jongyeol Kim, David Bahner, Chris Fox, Ruth Riley, Peter Steinmetz, Bret P. Nelson, John Pellerito, Levon N. Nazarian, L. Britt Wilson, Irene W. Y. Ma, David Amponsah, Keith R. Barron, Renee K. Dversdal, Mike Wagner, Anthony J. Dean, David Tierney, James W. Tsung, Paula Nocera, José Pazeli, Rachel Liu, Susanna Price, Luca Neri, Barbara Piccirillo, Adi Osman, Vaughan Lee, Nitha Naqvi, Tomislav Petrovic, Paul Bornemann, Maxime Valois, Jean-Francoise Lanctot, Robert Haddad, Deepak Govil, Laura A. Hurtado, Vi Am Dinh, Robert M. DePhilip, Beatrice Hoffmann, Resa E. Lewiss, Nayana A. Parange, Akira Nishisaki, Stephanie J. Doniger, Paul Dallas, Kevin Bergman, J. Oscar Barahona, Ximena Wortsman, R. Stephen Smith, Craig A. Sisson, James Palma, Mike Mallin, Liju Ahmed, Hassan Mustafa


The purpose of this study is to provide expert consensus recommendations to establish a global ultrasound curriculum for undergraduate medical students. 64 multi-disciplinary ultrasound experts from 16 countries, 50 multi-disciplinary ultrasound consultants, and 21 medical students and residents contributed to these recommendations. A modified Delphi consensus method was used that included a systematic literature search, evaluation of the quality of literature by the GRADE system, and the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and consensus decisions. The process included four in-person international discussion sessions and two rounds of online voting. A total of 332 consensus conference statements in four curricular domains were considered: (1) curricular scope (4 statements), (2) curricular rationale (10 statements), (3) curricular characteristics (14 statements), and (4) curricular content (304 statements). Of these 332 statements, 145 were recommended, 126 were strongly recommended, and 61 were not recommended. Important aspects of an undergraduate ultrasound curriculum identified include curricular integration across the basic and clinical sciences and a competency and entrustable professional activity-based model. The curriculum should form the foundation of a life-long continuum of ultrasound education that prepares students for advanced training and patient care. In addition, the curriculum should complement and support the medical school curriculum as a whole with enhanced understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathophysiological processes and clinical practice without displacing other important undergraduate learning. The content of the curriculum should be appropriate for the medical student level of training, evidence and expert opinion based, and include ongoing collaborative research and development to ensure optimum educational value and patient care. The international consensus conference has provided the first comprehensive document of recommendations for a basic ultrasound curriculum. The document reflects the opinion of a diverse and representative group of international expert ultrasound practitioners, educators, and learners. These recommendations can standardize undergraduate medical student ultrasound education while serving as a basis for additional research in medical education and the application of ultrasound in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 109 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 20%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Lecturer 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Unspecified 11 20%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 18 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2023.
All research outputs
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from The Ultrasound Journal
of 147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 431,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Ultrasound Journal
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.