Teaching methods, facilities, and institutions in student ultrasound education (SUSE): e-learning, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs

Abstract

To acquire ultrasound skills, students need access to educational resources for both theoretical and practical knowledge. Effective training depends on the availability of educational content, training opportunities, and facilities − all of which are often scarce. E-learning platforms, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs are potential solutions to complement supervised real-life bedside training on patients and improve ultrasound education. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs in the specific context of student education. E-learning platforms and teaching videos support students by offering flexible, accessible learning, allowing them to engage with material at their own pace. These digital resources complement practical lessons by providing essential theoretical knowledge that can be applied during hands-on sessions. Simulation creates a controlled environment for skill development and enhances patient safety, especially during interventional procedures. However, simulation equipment’s high cost and technical complexity strain budgets and require specialized staff and training. Simulators often fail to replicate real-life variability, limiting skill transfer to patient care. The establishment of ultrasound skills labs offers a solid, long-term opportunity for skill retention but requires sufficient and sustainable funding. In conclusion, e-learning, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs can be valuable components of student ultrasound education if used deliberately. They should be included in a blended medical curriculum incorporating real-world clinical experiences to ensure effective transfer of learning to clinical practice.

Full text

Review paper
Cite as: DaumN, SchwanemannJ, BlaivasM, PratsMI, HariR, HoffmannB, JenssenC,
KrutzA, LuciusC, NeubauerR, ReckerF, SirliR, WesterwaySC, ZervidesC, NürnbergD,
BarthG, Nourkami-TutdibiN, DietrichCF: Teaching methods, facilities, and institutions
in student ultrasound education (SUSE): e-learning, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs.
JUltrason 2025; 25: 14. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2025.0014.
© 2025 Authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND).
Reproduction is permitted for personal, educational, non-commercial use, provided that the original article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited.
Teaching methods, facilities, and institutions in student
ultrasound education (SUSE): e-learning, simulation,
and ultrasound skills labs
NilsDaum
1,2
, JannisSchwanemann
3,4
, MichaelBlaivas
5
, MichaelIgnacio
Prats
6
, RomanHari
7
, BeatriceHoffmann
8
, ChristianJenssen
2,9
,
AlexanderKrutz
2
, ClaudiaLucius
10
, RicardaNeubauer
11
,
FlorianRecker
12
, RoxanaSirli
13
, SusanCambellWesterway
14
,
ConstantinosZervides
15
, DieterNürnberg
2
, GregorBarth
16
,
NasenienNourkami-Tutdibi
17
, ChristophFrank Dietrich
18
1
 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin,
corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin wand Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Germany
2
Institute for Clinical Ultrasound (BICUS), Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany
3
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Ruppin-Brandenburg, Germany
4
Skills Lab, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany
5
Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, United States
6
Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, United States
7
Institute for Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland
8
 Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United
States
9
Department for Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland, Germany
10
Outpatient Department of Gastroenterology, IBD centre Helios Hospital Berlin – Buch, Germany
11
Bonn, University Hospital, Germany
12
Department of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Germany
13
 Department of Internal Medicine II – Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Center of Advanced Research in
Gastroenterology and Hepatology, “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara, Romania
14
School of Dentistry & Medical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Australia
15
Medical Physics and Dosimetry Services LTD, CZMH, Cyprus
16
 Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg
Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany
17
Hospital of General Pediatrics and Neonatology, Saarland University Medical Center, Germany
18
 Department General Internal Medicine, Hirslanden Clinics Beau-Site, Salem and Permancence, Bern,
Switzerland
Corresponding author: Christoph Frank Dietrich; e-mail: c.f.dietrich@googlemail.com
DOI: 10.15557/JoU.2025.0014
Abstract
To acquire ultrasound skills, students need access to educational resources for both theoretical and practical
knowledge. Eective training depends on the availability of educational content, training opportunities,
and facilities − all of which are oen scarce. E-learning platforms, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs
are potential solutions to complement supervised real-life bedside training on patients and improve
ultrasound education. is review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning, simulation,
and ultrasound skills labs in the specic context of student education. E-learning platforms and teaching
videos support students by oering exible, accessible learning, allowing them to engage with material at
their own pace. ese digital resources complement practical lessons by providing essential theoretical
knowledge that can be applied during hands-on sessions. Simulation creates acontrolled environment
for skill development and enhances patient safety, especially during interventional procedures. However,
simulation equipment’s high cost and technical complexity strain budgets and require specialized sta and
training. Simulators oen fail to replicate real-life variability, limiting skill transfer to patient care. e
establishment of ultrasound skills labs oers asolid, long-term opportunity for skill retention but requires
Submitted:
14.02.2025
Accepted:
31.03.2025
Published:
28.04.2025
Keywords
ultrasound;
education;
students;
telemedicine;
articial intelligence

Page 2 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
Introduction
Over the years, medical education has changed signicantly. New
technologies and teaching methods have greatly transformed how
teaching and learning are conducted. is evolution is also evident
in student ultrasound education (SUSE). e integration of elec-
tronic learning (e-learning), simulations, and Ultrasound Skills
Labs (USSL) is reshaping the way ultrasound education is delivered
and aims to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and clini-
cal practice.
E-learning has signicantly transformed the landscape of ultra-
sound education(1–6). is shi was further accelerated by the CO-
VID-19 pandemic, which necessitated a rapid transition from
traditional lecture-based instruction to remote learning − particu-
larly in medical settings, where hospitals were oen inaccessible to
students(7–11). Remote learning approaches now encompass awide
range of digital resources, including electronic textbooks, educa-
tional websites, instructional videos, online courses, webinars, and
social media platforms(12–15). ese resources, available commer-
cially and through free-access initiatives such as Free Open Access
Medical Education, oer learners exibility, enabling them to study
independently and at their own pace(16). is digital transformation
aligns with the expectations of anew generation of students who
are increasingly accustomed to using digital tools for both learn-
ing and daily life(12,13,17–19). Technological advancements, especially in
simulation-based education, have further reshaped the delivery of
educational content(20–22). Ultrasound education readily incorporates
e-learning, with both advantages and challenges(15,23–38).
Alongside e-learning, simulation-based medical education has be-
come essential for enhancing ultrasound training. Simulation plat-
forms, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and im-
mersive virtual reality (IVR), now play apivotal role in ultrasound
training by oering asafe, controlled, and replicable environment
for students to develop their practical skills without risking patient
harm, especially in invasive elds such as interventional ultrasound
(INVUS)(39–42).
e European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine
and Biology (EFSUMB) recommends using simulation equipment
to train interventional skills before performing INVUS procedures
on patients(43). Computer-based or VR simulators have been devel-
oped to present awide range of typical and rare clinical patholo-
gies. ese databases are especially interesting for more experienced
users. erefore, simulation-based learning has traditionally been
introduced in the later stages of ultrasound training(30). Here, we dis-
cuss the advantages and challenges of integrating simulation into the
early steps of student education, including its role in understanding
anatomy and three-dimensional spatial relationships.
To create an appropriate space for conducting simulations and inte-
grating theoretical knowledge with clinical practice, skills labs have
become increasingly important in medical education. In Germany,
many universities have integrated skills labs into their curricula,
oering structured exercises through which students can develop
specic competencies under the guidance of experienced instruc-
tors and student tutors. USSL, explicitly dedicated to ultrasound
training, have now been incorporated into most medical programs.
ese facilities oer students opportunities to participate in diverse
learning formats, including curriculum-based exercises, peer teach-
ing, independent practice sessions (“free scanning”), and Objective
Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE)(38).
is study aims to evaluate and explore the integration of various
educational tools, including e-learning platforms, simulation-based
training, and USSL, into SUSE. It seeks to identify the benets and
challenges associated with these tools and provide recommenda-
tions for creating abalanced curriculum that eectively prepares
students for the demands of clinical practice.
Advantages of e-learning in SUSE
E-learning approaches oer numerous benets for both educators
and learners. Aprimary advantage for learners is the increased ac-
cessibility and control over their education. is exibility allows
learners to select their preferred learning environment. Further-
more, e-learning provides the ability to choose the timing and pace
of instruction, enabling learners to adjust the speed of content deliv-
ery to suit their individual needs(11). Unlike traditional group class-
room settings, e-learning allows learners to slow down or accelerate
the material as needed and to review resources multiple times for
better comprehension(44). is self-guided approach aligns educa-
tional content with the learner’s requirements and facilitates an ap-
propriate allocation of study time and review.
is evolution in educational strategies reects broader shis within
medical education, underscoring the need for educational systems
to adapt to the digital era in which learners are immersed(12,45,46).
Despite clinical information typically being “showcased” in tradi-
tional seminars and lectures, one of the advantages of incorporating
e-learning into ultrasound medical education is the unique op-
portunity to demonstrate, explore, and understand clinical cases,
including rare case presentations, on acontinuously available plat-
form. In traditional settings, students and healthcare professionals
oen depend on actual patient encounters, which may not always
expose them to rare or unusual conditions. However, with e-learn-
ing platforms, learners can access avast database of both standard
and special cases simultaneously.
E-learning resources can incorporate dynamic ultrasound videos,
oering signicant advantages over static images found in tradi-
tional textbooks. ese videos enhance the understanding of three-
dimensional anatomy and probe motions, which are crucial aspects
of ultrasound technology. e ability to observe real-time ultra-
sound loops helps students understand the nuances of image acqui-
sition and interpretation, making it amore eective learning tool.
sucient and sustainable funding. In conclusion, e-learning, simulation, and ultrasound skills labs can
be valuable components of student ultrasound education if used deliberately. ey should be included in
ablended medical curriculum incorporating real-world clinical experiences to ensure eective transfer of
learning to clinical practice.

Page 3 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
is visual and dynamic representation bridges the gap between
theoretical knowledge and practical application, leading to adeeper
and more intuitive understanding of ultrasound techniques. Digi-
tal learning material also has the advantage of being updated more
quickly than print resources(15,47).
An added benet of e-learning is its potential to foster collabora-
tive learning through interactive features such as discussion forums,
real-time feedback, and peer-to-peer learning modules. ese tools
can create asense of community among learners, even when they
are geographically dispersed. Collaboration in a virtual environ-
ment allows students and educators to share their knowledge, solve
problems collectively, and gain insights from diverse perspectives.
For example, virtual simulation-based learning has shown promise
in developing diagnostic skills in medical education by encouraging
teamwork and critical thinking.
Lastly, it has been widely acknowledged that alack of resources is
one of the most common challenges when implementing an ultra-
sound education program(48). E-learning requires an initial cost for
creating and hosting material, but not necessarily for the educator or
learner. Many resources are free to use and, therefore, can provide
low-cost education by reducing the need for in-person ultrasound
educators, thereby cutting down both educator time and nancial
expenses. E-learning tools can also be designed to be interactive,
further enhancing attention and engagement(12,13).
E-learning resources allow students from dierent regions to access
training materials, regardless of local infrastructure or expertise.
is “democratization” of education promotes the opportunity for
students to acquire ultrasound knowledge regardless of their geo-
graphical location. By using e-learning, educational institutions can
bridge disparities in training and promote aglobally consistent stan-
dard in SUSE.
Disadvantages of e-learning in SUSE
Like many modern technological approaches, the greatest strength
of e-learning has also become asignicant concern. e ubiquitous
availability and expansion of educational resources pose arisk of in-
adequate and uncontrolled education. It can be challenging to verify
the identity and expertise of creators, and the risk of misinformation
is acommon issue(49). Furthermore, it is rare for an e-learning re-
source to undergo the rigorous peer-review and editing process typ-
ically applied to published journal articles or textbook chapters(50).
While metrics have been developed to rate the quality of free online
resources(51,52), each resource must be used with healthy skepticism
and caution, and ideally reviewed by an expert educator before be-
ing recommended for use by learners. Articial intelligence (AI)
might help verify and match the material to traditional content and
aid in reviewing open-access information(39,40,53). e vast amount of
available content, along with the possible lack of categorization by
diculty level and learning objectives, can overwhelm users. is
lack of structure may hinder users’ sense of progress and achieve-
ment, potentially leading to frustration and decreasedmotivation.
Another concern is that some e-learning resources may fail to pro-
vide the full breadth of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary ultra-
sound education curriculum. Because many free resources aim to
engage as many learners as possible, there is abias toward featuring
content that might seem more exciting or topical(54). is issue is pri-
marily relevant for learners independently consuming ultrasound
education, apart from an organized program. e simple solution to
this phenomenon is for educators to create comprehensive curricula
that balance e-learning with traditional resources, ensuring that im-
portant topics are not omitted.
A further challenge with e-learning is the diculty of assessing
its eectiveness and the extent of knowledge acquired by learners.
E-learning may depend on factors such as the quality of digital con-
tent, the degree of students’ self-motivation, and the integration of
e-learning into abroader educational strategy. In traditional face-
to-face teaching methods, educators can interact with learners, ask
questions, and receive immediate feedback on their understanding
and learning progress. is interactive element is oen absent in
e-learning environments, where the lack of direct supervision makes
assessing the degree of understanding more dicult. While quizzes
and automated assessments can indicate learning progress, they do
not necessarily capture the depth of understanding or the ability to
apply knowledge in practice, especially for practical skills such as
ultrasound. Incorporating structured feedback mechanisms and in-
teractive sessions into e-learning could address this limitation and
provide amore comprehensive picture of learner performance(12,13).
Hands-on, proctored education remains essential for developing
psychomotor skills needed for proper ultrasound examination tech-
niques, including image acquisition and interpretation. us, al-
though e-learning oers exibility and accessibility, its success likely
depends on thoughtful implementation and complementarity with
traditional teaching methods.
Advantages of simulation-based training in SUSE
Simulation-based training has become acornerstone of SUSE, oer-
ing numerous advantages over traditional teaching methods. Simu-
lation-based training is particularly benecial in developing practi-
cal competencies that must be achieved according to the consensus
criteria for objective structured assessment of ultrasound skills
(OSAUS)(4,55). ese include applied knowledge of the ultrasound
machine, image optimization, systematic examination, and interpre-
tation of images(55). Training modes within simulators engage learn-
ers to continuously adapt hand movements and probe placement for
optimal image acquisition in standard planes. Ultrasound simula-
tion allows students to learn according to their needs, training speed
and requirement of repetitions, as there are no considerations about
using living models(4). On the other hand, students tend to learn in
groups, so providing healthy ultrasound models, especially for the
rst training steps, may not present asignicant challenge.
Errors are an inevitable part of any learning process. erefore, sim-
ulation-based training should be included in medical curricula, es-
pecially for INVUS(43,56). Simulation settings allow students to learn
through making mistakes without patient endangerment. ADanish
study on simulation-based obstetric ultrasound training demon-
strated that encouraging mistakes during training, as opposed to the
traditional error avoidance strategy, resulted in better performance
scores and improved transfer into clinical settings(57).
Learning anatomy requires complex three-dimensional visual-spa-
tial understanding(58). Anatomy training with ultrasound simula-

Page 4 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
tors, compared to traditional formalin-xed cadavers, oers several
advantages. Ultrasound simulators can be used for as long and as
oen as necessary, providing an equal or better understanding of
anatomical relationships with the surrounding body(59). In addition,
ultrasound is awidely used tool in everyday clinical practice, which
can lead to long-term retention of anatomical knowledge, while
anatomical knowledge from the study period oen diminishes over
time. In the end, neither dissection, cadaver models, virtual models,
nor simulation can replace the demonstration of dynamic functions
in areal clinical setting.
Understanding real-time ultrasound images in two dimensions
while learning anatomical relationships within the body remains
a common didactic challenge. However, using three-dimensional
model applications has helped students better understand ultra-
sound applications according to aTaiwanese randomized controlled
trial(60) and arecent systematic review(61).
Simulation-based training can be helpful even for the very rst steps
of obstetric ultrasound training(62). AFrench study involving twenty
medical students found benets for the simulation-trained group,
including time-saving eects and the achievement of basic practical
skills before examining real patients(63).
A randomized controlled trial tested the eciency and feasibil-
ity of an ultrasound simulator for self-directed learning of cardiac
anatomy compared to cadaver and plastic models in 50preclinical
anatomy students in Australia(59). Just three hours of simulator train-
ing appeared equivalent to using human cadaver models in master-
ing multiple-choice questions, and it was perceived very positively
by the students. e limitations of cadavers – such as the loss of col-
or and shape due to xation − could be overcome, and ultrasound
simulation proved helpful for orientation within three-dimensional
cardiac anatomy and its relationships with surrounding organs, in
contrast to dissected cadaver models.
Simulations can present realistic case scenarios, thereby integrating
pathologies into SUSE. Additionally, they provide the opportunity
to create standardized pathologies for knowledge assessments, test-
ing participants’ ability to dierentiate between conditions. Acute
pathologies, which are otherwise challenging to simulate in practice
settings, can be eectively addressed in simulations, allowing for the
practice of clinically relevant scenarios and the ability to train pro-
gressively, step by step. Simulation-based learning oers the advan-
tage of training standardized examination processes for focused as-
sessment with sonography for trauma (FAST). Ablinded controlled
study with medical students preparing for FAST demonstrated that
simulator training was equal to traditional training(64).
Furthermore, asmall randomized controlled trial with Canadian
medical students with prior experience of point-of-care-ultra-
sound (POCUS) found that two additional self-directed simulator
sessions (each two hours long) led to asignicant improvement
of visual and practical examination skills for shock assessment(65).
Similar results were shown in arecent larger Danish randomized
controlled trial with nal-year students(66) using IVR with head-
mounted devices. e self-directed VR lessons led to equivalent
basic POCUS skills in terms of image optimization, systematic ap-
proach, and interpretation, compared to traditional instructor-led
lessons. Maintenance costs for both education modes were simi-
larly estimated.
Disadvantages of simulation-based training in SUSE
Although simulators can replicate common pathologies, they are
limited by the fact that handling can only be taught and learned in
real-life settings with hands-on training. Simulated patient compo-
sition and compliance cannot be compared to real-life scenarios. At
least some human attributes could be trained indirectly using VR
simulation with simulated patient histories for students before clini-
cal practice(67). Additionally, extensive simulation exercises limit the
opportunity for real patient contact, which can impair the develop-
ment of communicative medical skills.
e signicant costs associated with simulation training, encom-
passing purchasing, maintaining, and upgrading equipment and
soware, can strain educational budgets substantially, potentially
diverting resources from other critical areas. e technical com-
plexity of implementing and maintaining simulation systems also
requires specialized sta and continuous training, adding to the -
nancial burden.
Moreover, the eectiveness of simulation-based training can vary
widely depending on instructors’ prociency with the technology
and their ability to integrate it into the curriculum seamlessly. In-
structors who lack adequate training or experience with simulation
technology may not utilize it to its full potential, which can diminish
the overall educational benet(6).
Feedback is one of the most important factors ensuring teach-
ing success(68). Expensive high-delity simulators alone oer
only modest benets if there is no adequate feedback provided
to trainees(69,70).
Additionally, there is for a risk that students may develop afalse
sense of condence or competence, as the controlled simulation
environment may not accurately reect the unpredictability and
pressure of actual clinical situations. It is essential to balance sim-
ulation-based training with ample real-world clinical exposure to
address these challenges, ensuring students gain comprehensive and
practical experience. Furthermore, ongoing investment in instruc-
tor training and curriculum development is critical to maximizing
the educational benets of simulation technology while mitigating
its drawbacks(6).
Advantages of USSL in SUSE
Implementing a USSL oers numerous advantages. First, there
is ahigh level of student interest in practical ultrasound training,
which enhances the overall appeal of the course and the skills lab
itself. e hands-on experience in the USSL promotes the devel-
opment of basic clinical skills and enables students to practice and
rene their techniques in a controlled environment. In this way,
USSLs also improve patient safety by allowing students to gain expe-
rience before applying their skills in clinical situations. In addition,
aUSSL supports longitudinal learning by providing opportunities
for continuing education and promoting long-term retention. It can
also serve as a platform for research activities, contributing to ad-
vances in ultrasound teaching. Furthermore, it boosts the image of
the university and the skills lab, potentially establishing the USSL as
aagship project.

Page 5 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
Disadvantages of USSL in SUSE
However, several drawbacks must be considered. Signicant invest-
ments are required, which might deprive other areas of necessary
resources. Additionally, ongoing costs for rent, supplies, and equip-
ment maintenance, oen previously unbudgeted, must be taken into
account. Currently, ultrasound training is optional in the skills cata-
log, and the success of such aprogram oen relies heavily on the
personal commitment of individual university instructors.
USSL equipment
An USSL should be generally equipped with several ultrasound ex-
amination sites (the number depending on the number of students
to be trained), e.g., 4–8 stations (one station for 20 students per
year). Each station should include an ultrasound machine, an ex-
amination couch, and achair. Consumables such as ultrasound gel,
wipes, disinfectants, and couch covers should be readily available. In
addition to the classic B-mode scan (including both low- and high-
frequency probes), ultrasound systems should be capable of color
Doppler and options for echocardiography. Other requirements for
the ultrasound systems include new or used/refurbished ultrasound
machines supplemented by handheld ultrasound systems (HHUS).
e required space per ultrasound station is approximately 10–12
square meters, with aroom for 2–4 systems requiring approximately
20–40 square meters(1). e facility should allow blackout condi-
tions and adjustable lighting with smaller light sources or dimmer
switches and aseparate power supply for each examination station.
Additional equipment includes Wi-Fi and/or network access, litera-
ture, display boards, clip charts or similar, and, if possible, phantoms
or simulators. Supervision of the premises and equipment (by ultra-
sound tutors) and controlled access to the premises are also essential.
Conclusions
is review aims to evaluate and explore the integration of various
educational tools, including e-learning platforms, simulation-based
training, and USSL, into SUSE. It seeks to identify the benets and
challenges associated with these tools and provide recommenda-
tions for creating abalanced curriculum that eectively prepares
students for the demands of clinical practice.
E-learning should be considered part of acomprehensive teaching
approach that incorporates multiple learning methodologies, in-
cluding hands-on training. For example, e-learning works best in
conjunction with other complementary teaching methods, such as
blended learning units(37,71–73). Blended learning combines the ben-
ets of e-learning with the irreplaceable aspects of in-person hands-
on training, resulting in better knowledge outcomes than traditional
classroom instruction alone(74,75). e versatility of e-learning allows
for exible deployment − before and aer hands-on sessions or
as atool for periodic review to improve retention(24,76,77). With the
growth of more advanced simulation, VR, and AI in ultrasound
education, there will likely be additional options for widespread re-
mote learning in the future(4–6,33,39,40,66,78). By incorporating e-learn-
ing, educational institutions can bridge disparities in training and
promote aglobally consistent standard in SUSE. Concerns about
content quality can be addressed through peer review and oversight
by expert educators.
In addition to e-learning, simulation training is an important com-
ponent of ultrasound education, providing a controlled and safe
environment for students to develop their ultrasound skills inde-
pendently. Implementing best practices in simulation ensures that
learners gain prociency and condence, and promotes self-direct-
ed learning.
Students of all training stages and experience levels can benet
from simulation-based learning, which may range from simple self-
made gelatin phantoms to complete VR simulations. Training on
simulators should be embedded within alongitudinal ultrasound
curriculum that also includes other methodological approaches,
such as hands-on training sessions with qualied tutors. Trans-
ferring simulation-based learning concepts into clinical contexts
should be organized during the implementation of simulation-
based learning, as patient physiology, patient compliance, and the
requirements for communication skills cannot be reected and
taught through simulators.
Establishing aUSSL is an important and necessary part of astudent
ultrasound curriculum, primarily to eectively design and imple-
ment simulation training. Learning practical ultrasound skills is
currently an optional part of the competency catalog. Still, it is rec-
ommended by German medical faculties and supported by the so-
called National Competency-based Learning Catalog in Medicine
(Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog Medizin, NKLM)
(79). erefore, aUSSL could be integrated into askills lab and bud-
geted independently of whether the ultrasound curriculum is of-
fered as acurricular or extracurricular component.
Overall, it is evident that teaching and learning methods have
changed signicantly in recent years. Integrating theoretically ac-
quired knowledge with clinical practice has become integral to
medical education. Especially in ultrasound training, the practical
component of learning skills is essential. While there are both advan-
tages and disadvantages, the new teaching methods have proven to
be well-suited for medical ultrasound education and hold great po-
tential to advance the development of ultrasound skills signicantly.
Acknowledgement
e authors thank the SUSE group for their input and advice.
Conicts of interest
e authors have no relevant nancial or non-nancial interests to
disclose.
Funding
is research received no external funding.
Ethics approval
is study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration
of Helsinki. As no patient data or animals were involved, obtaining
local ethics approval was not required.

Page 6 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
Patient consent statement
is review does not involve any studies with human participants or
patient data; therefore, patient consent was not required.
Clinical trial registration
No new clinical trials were conducted as part of this review. e clini-
cal trials discussed within the review can be accessed via their registra-
tion numbers, as cited in the article.
Data availability statement
is review article is based on the analysis and synthesis of previously
published studies and does not involve the generation of new data-
sets. All data supporting the ndings of this review are available in
the referenced articles and publications. No new data were created or
analyzed in this study.
Author contributions
Original concept of study: ND, DN, CFD. Writing of manuscript: ND,
JS, MB, MIP, RH, BH, CJ, AK, CL, RN, FR, RS, SCW, CZ, DN, GB,
NNT, CFD. Final acceptation of manuscript: ND, CFD. Collection,
recording and/or compilation of data: CFD. Critical review of manu-
script: ND, CFD.
References
1. Facilities Guidelines Institute, United States, Department of Health and Human
Services, and American Society for Healthcare Engineering.Guidelines for Design
and Construction of Health Care Facilities. 2010 ed. Chicago, IL: ASHE American
Society for Healthcare Engineering of the American Hospital Association, 2010.
Available from: https://fgiguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2010_FGI_
Guidelines.pdf.
2. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM: e impact of e-learning in medical education.
Acad Med 2006; 81: 207–212. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002.
3. Sweileh WM: Global research activity on e-learning in health sciences education:
abibliometric analysis. Med Sci Educ 2021; 31: 765–775. doi: 10.1007/s40670-021-
01254-6.
4. Dietrich CF, Lucius C, Nielsen MB, Burmester E, Westerway SC, Chu CY et al.: e
ultrasound use of simulators, current view, and perspectives: Requirements and
technical aspects (WFUMB state of the art paper). Endosc Ultrasound 2023; 12:
38–49. doi: 10.4103/eus-d-22-00197.
5. Lucius C, Koch JBH, Jenssen C, Karlas T, Sänger SL, Dietrich CF: State of the art:
Simulation in der Ultraschallausbildung. ZGastroenterol 2024; 62: 723–736. Ger-
man. doi: 10.1055/a-2183-1888.
6. Lucius C, Nielsen MB, Blaivas M, Burmester E, Westerway SC, Chu CY et al.: e
use of simulation in medical ultrasound: Current perspectives on applications and
practical implementation (WFUMB state-of-the-art paper). Endosc Ultrasound
2023; 12: 311–318. doi: 10.1097/eus.0000000000000022.
7. Stoehr F, Müller L, Brady A, Trilla A, Mähringer-Kunz A, Hahn F et al.: How CO-
VID-19 kick-started online learning in medical education – e DigiMed study.
PLoS One 2021; 16: e0257394. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257394.
8. Brika SKM, Chergui K, Algamdi A, Musa AA, Zouaghi R: E-Learning Research
Trends in Higher Education in Light of COVID-19: ABibliometric Analysis. Front
Psychol 2021; 12: 762819. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.762819.
9. Höhne E, Schäfer VS, Neubauer R, Gotta J, Reschke P, Wittek Aet al.: Afour year
follow-up survey on the teledidactic TELUS ultrasound course: long-term ben-
ets and implications. BMC Med Educ2024; 24: 1022. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-
05993-z.
10. Höhne E, Recker F, Brossart P, Schäfer VS: Teledidactic Versus Hands-on Teaching
of Abdominal, oracic, and yroid Ultrasound – e TELUS II Study. J Gen
Intern Med2024; 39: 1803–1810. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08760-4.
11. Dost S, Hossain A, Shehab M, Abdelwahed A, Al-Nusair L: Perceptions of medi-
cal students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: anational
cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e042378.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042378.
12. Daum N, Boten D, Schutz T, Sendeski M, Spethmann S: Erwerb von Medienkom-
petenz zur Durchführung eines synchronen Online-Tutoriums zur Entwicklung
fachlich-methodischer Basiskompetenzen in der medizinischen Aus- und Weiter-
bildung. Jahrestagung der Gesellscha für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA).
Zürich, Schweiz 2021. doi: 10.3205/21gma142.
13. Boten DN, Daum N, Schutz T, Spethmann S: From Videogames to Teaching – Dif-
ferent Camera Perspectives in an Interactive Synchronous Online Tutorial. Med
Sci Educ 2023; 33: 1029–1031. doi: 10.1007/s40670-023-01833-9.
14. Altersberger M, Pavelka P, Sachs A, Weber M, Wagner-Menghin M, Prosch H:
Student Perceptions of Instructional Ultrasound Videos as Preparation for aPrac-
tical Assessment. Ultrasound Int Open 2019; 5: E81–E8. doi: 10.1055/a-1024-4573.
15. Horn CL, Müller L, Dirks K, Weinmann-Menke J, Weimer A, Diorio F et al.:
Comparison of two dierent (digital vs. analog) ultrasound learning devices – the
„DIvAN-study”. Ultraschall Med 2022; 43(S 01): 78. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1749575.
16. Chan TM, Stehman C, Gottlieb M, oma B: AShort History of Free Open Access
Medical Education. e Past, Present, and Future. ATS Sch 2020; 1: 87–100. doi:
10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0014PS.
17. Latif MZ, Hussain I, Saeed R, Qureshi MA, Maqsood U: Use of Smart Phones and
Social Media in Medical Education: Trends, Advantages, Challenges and Barriers.
Acta Inform Med 2019; 27: 133–138. doi: 10.5455/aim.2019.27.133-138.
18. D’Souza F, Shah S, Oki O, Scrivens L, Guckian J: Social media: medical education’s
double-edged sword. Future Healthc J 2021; 8: e307–e10. doi: 10.7861/j.2020-
0164.
19. Guckian J, Utukuri M, Asif A, Burton O, Adeyoju J, Oumeziane Aet al.: Social
media in undergraduate medical education: Asystematic review. Med Educ 2021;
55: 1227–1241. doi: 10.1111/medu.14567.
20. Mallin M, Schlein S, Doctor S, Stroud S, Dawson M, Fix M: Asurvey of the current
utilization of asynchronous education among emergency medicine residents in the
United States. Acad Med 2014; 89: 598–601. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000170.
21. Premkumar K, Pahwa P, Banerjee A, Baptiste K, Bhatt H, Lim HJ: Does medical
training promote or deter self-directed learning? Alongitudinal mixed-methods
study. Acad Med 2013; 88: 1754–1764. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a9262d.
22. Reed S, Shell R, Kassis K, Tartaglia K, Wallihan R, Smith K et al.: Applying adult
learning practices in medical education. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care
2014; 44: 170–181. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.008.
23. Chenkin J, Lee S, Huynh T, Bandiera G: Procedures can be learned on the Web:
arandomized study of ultrasound-guided vascular access training. Acad Emerg
Med2008; 15: 949–954. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00231.x.
24. Hempel D, Haunhorst S, Sinnathurai S, Seibel A, Recker F, Heringer F et al.: Social
media to supplement point-of-care ultrasound courses: the “sandwich e-learning”
approach. Arandomized trial. Crit Ultrasound J 2016; 8: 3. doi: 10.1186/s13089-
016-0037-9.
25. Coier B, Shen PCH, Lee EYP, Kwong TSP, Lai AYT, Wong EMF et al.: Introduc-
ing point-of-care ultrasound through structured multifaceted ultrasound module
in the undergraduate medical curriculum at the University of Hong Kong. Ultra-
sound 2020; 28: 38– 46. doi: 10.1177/1742271X19847224.
26. Lin-Martore M, Olvera MP, Kornblith AE, Zapala M, Addo N, Lin M et al.: Evalu-
ating aWeb-based Point-of-care Ultrasound Curriculum for the Diagnosis of In-
tussusception. AEM Educ Train 2021; 5: e10526. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10526.
27. Situ-LaCasse E, Acuña J, Huynh D, Amini R, Irving S, Samsel K et al.: Can ultra-
sound novices develop image acquisition skills aer reviewing online ultrasound
modules? BMC Med Educ 2021; 21: 175. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02612-z.
28. Alsa N, Alsa A: Instagram: Aplatform for ultrasound education? Ultrasound
2021; 29: 44–47. doi: 10.1177/1742271X20920908.

Page 7 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
29. Lien WC, Lin P, Chang CH, Wu MC, Wu CY: e eect of e-learning on point-of-
care ultrasound education in novices. Med Educ Online 2023; 28: 2152522. doi:
10.1080/10872981.2022.2152522.
30. Blank V, Strobel D, Karlas T: Digital Training Formats in Ultrasound Diagnostics
for physicians: What options are available and how can they be successfully inte-
grated into current DEGUM certied course concepts? Ultraschall Med 2022; 43:
428–434. doi: 10.1055/a-1900-8166.
31. Hempel D, Sinnathurai S, Haunhorst S, Seibel A, Michels G, Heringer F et al.:
Inuence of case-based e-learning on students’ performance in point-of-care
ultrasound courses: a randomized trial. Eur J Emerg Med 2015. doi: 10.1097/
MEJ.0000000000000270.
32. Räschle N, Hari R: [Blended Learning Basic Course Sonography – ASGUM Ac-
credited Ultrasound Course Based on Peer-Tutoring]. Praxis (Bern 1994). 2018;
107: 1255–1259. doi: 10.1024/1661-8157/a003116.
33. Rosenfeldt Nielsen M, Kristensen EQ, Jensen RO, Mollerup AM, Pfeier T, Grau-
mann O: Clinical Ultrasound Education for Medical Students: Virtual Reality
Versus e-Learning, aRandomized Controlled Pilot Trial. Ultrasound Q 2021; 37:
292–296. doi: 10.1097/ruq.0000000000000558.
34. Perice L, Naraghi L, Likourezos A, Singh H, Haines L: Implementation of anovel
digital ultrasound education tool into an emergency medicine rotation: Ultra-
soundBox. AEM Educ Train 2022; 6: e10765. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10765.
35. Duarte ML, Santos LRD, Iared W, Peccin MS: Comparison of ultrasonography
learning between distance teaching and traditional methodology. An educational
systematic review. Sao Paulo Med. J 2022; 140: 806–817. doi: 10.1590/1516-
3180.2021.1047.R.19052022.
36. Dietrich CF, Sirli RL, Barth G, Blaivas M, Daum N, Dong Y et al.: Student ul-
trasound education – current views and controversies. Ultraschall Med 2024; 45:
389–394. doi: 10.1055/a-2265-1070.
37. Krüger R, Weinmann-Menke J, Buggenhange H, Kurz S, Bellhäuser H, Weimer AM
etal.: Blended Learning improves FoCUS cardiac ultrasound training for undergrad-
uates-aprospective, controlled, randomized single-center study. Ultraschall in der
Medizin – European Journal of Ultrasound. 2023; 44. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1772433.
38. Neubauer R, Bauer CJ, Dietrich CF, Strizek B, Schäfer VS, Recker F: Evidence-
based Ultrasound Education? – ASystematic Literature Review of Undergradu-
ate Ultrasound Training Studies. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10: a22750702. doi:
10.1055/a-2275-0702.
39. Daum N, Blaivas M, Goudie A, Homann B, Jenssen C, Neubauer R et al.: Stu-
dent ultrasound education, current view and controversies. Role of Articial Intel-
ligence, Virtual Reality and telemedicine. UltrasoundJ 2024; 16: 44. doi: 10.1186/
s13089-024-00382-5.
40. Daum N, Neubauer R, Boten D, Dietrich CF: Studentische Ultraschall-Ausbil-
dung: Rolle von Künstlicher Intelligenz, Virtueller Realität und Telemedizin. Ul-
traschall Med 2024; 45(S 01): A-287. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1789051.
41. Kahr Rasmussen N, Nayahangan LJ, Carlsen J, Ekberg O, Brabrand K, Albrecht-
BesteEet al.: Evaluation of competence in ultrasound-guided procedures – age-
neric assessment tool developed through the Delphi method. Eur Radiol 2021; 31:
4203–4211. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07280-z.
42. Eder N, Daum N, Seckinger DA, Nürnberg D, Jenssen C: ANational Register for
Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS) in Germany: outline and preliminary results
of a pilot study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2022; 48: S76. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmed-
bio.2022.04.210.
43. Lorentzen T, Nolsøe CP, Ewertsen C, Nielsen MB, Leen E, Havre RF et al.: EF-
SUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part I. General Aspects
(long Version). Ultraschall Med 2015; 36: E1–14. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1553593.
44. O’Leary FM, Janson P: Can e-learning improve medical students’ knowledge and
competence in paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A prospective before
and aer study. Emerg Med Australas 2010; 22: 324–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-
6723.2010.01302.x.
45. Emanuel EJ: e Inevitable Reimagining of Medical Education. JAMA 2020; 323:
1127–1128. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1227.
46. Lewis KO, Cidon MJ, Seto TL, Chen H, Mahan JD: Leveraging e-learning in medi-
cal education. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 2014; 44: 150–163. doi:
10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.004.
47. Welsh J, Lu Y, Dhruva SS, Bikdeli B, Desai NR, Benchetrit L et al.: Age of Data at
the Time of Publication of Contemporary Clinical Trials. JAMA Netw Open 2018;
1: e181065. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1065.
48. Dietrich CF, Homann B, Cantisani V, Dong Y, Hari R, Nisenbaum H et al.: Medi-
cal Student Ultrasound Education, aWFUMB Position Paper, Part I, response to
the letter to the Editor. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45: 1857–1859. doi: 10.1016/
j.ultrasmedbio.2019.02.020.
49. oma B, Sebok-Syer SS, Krishnan K, Siemens M, Trueger NS, Colmers-Gray Ie t a l .:
Individual Gestalt Is Unreliable for the Evaluation of Quality in Medical Educa-
tion Blogs: AMETRIQ Study. Ann Emerg Med 2017; 70: 394–401. doi: 10.1016/j.
annemergmed.2016.12.025.
50. Azim A, Beck-Esmay J, Chan TM: Editorial Processes in Free Open Access Medi-
cal Educational (FOAM) Resources. AEM Educ Train 2018; 2: 204–212. doi:
10.1002/aet2.10097.
51. Chan TM, Grock A, Paddock M, Kulasegaram K, Yarris LM, Lin M: Examining
Reliability and Validity of an Online Score (ALiEM AIR) for Rating Free Open
Access Medical Education Resources. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 68: 729–735. doi:
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.02.018.
52. oma B, Chan TM, Kapur P, Siord D, Siemens M, Paddock M et al.: e So-
cial Media Index as an Indicator of Quality for Emergency Medicine Blogs:
AMETRIQ Study. Ann Emerg Med 2018; 72: 696–702. doi: 10.1016/j.annemerg-
med.2018.05.003.
53. Mese I, Altintas Taslicay C, Kuzan BN, Kuzan TY, Sivrioglu AK: Educating the
next generation of radiologists: acomparative report of ChatGPT and e-learning
resources. Diagn Interv Radiol 2024; 30: 163–174. doi: 10.4274/dir.2023.232496.
54. Stuntz R, Clontz R: An Evaluation of Emergency Medicine Core Content Covered
by Free Open Access Medical Education Resources. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 67:
649–653: e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.12.020.
55. Tolsgaard MG, Todsen T, Sorensen JL, Ringsted C, Lorentzen T, Ottesen B et al.:
International multispecialty consensus on how to evaluate ultrasound compe-
tence: aDelphi consensus survey. PLoS One 2013; 8: e57687. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0057687.
56. Lorentzen T, Nolsoe CP, Ewertsen C, Nielsen MB, Leen E, Havre RF et al.: EF-
SUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part I. General Aspects
(long Version). Ultraschall Med 2015; 36: E1–14. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1553593.
57. Dyre L, Tabor A, Ringsted C, Tolsgaard MG: Imperfect practice makes perfect:
error management training improves transfer of learning. Med Educ 2017; 51:
196–206. doi: 10.1111/medu.13208.
58. Luer RS, Zumwalt AC, Romney CA, Hoagland TM: Eect of visual-spatial ability
on medical students’ performance in agross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 2012;
5: 3–9. doi: 10.1002/ase.264.
59. Canty DJ, Hayes JA, Story DA, Royse CF: Ultrasound simulator-assisted teach-
ing of cardiac anatomy to preclinical anatomy students: Apilot randomized trial
of athree-hour learning exposure. Anat Sci Educ 2015; 8: 21–30. doi: 10.1002/
ase.1452.
60. Hu KC, Salcedo D, Kang YN, Lin CW, Hsu CW, Cheng CY et al.: Impact of virtual
reality anatomy training on ultrasound competency development: Arandomized
controlled trial. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0242731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242731.
61. Halpern SA, Brace EJ, Hall AJ, Morrison RG, Patel DV, Yuh JY et al.: 3-D modeling
applications in ultrasound education: asystematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol
2022; 48: 188–197. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.09.018.
62. Weimer J, Recker F, Hasenburg A, Buggenhagen H, Karbach K, Beer L et al.: De-
velopment and evaluation of a“simulator-based” ultrasound training program for
university teaching in obstetrics and gynecology – the prospective GynSim study.
Front Med (Lausanne) 2024; 11: 1371141. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1371141.
63. Chalouhi GE, Quibel T, Lamourdedieu C, Hajal NJ, Gueneuc A, Benzina N et al.:
[Obstetrical ultrasound simulator as atool for improving teaching strategies for
beginners: Pilot study and review of the literature]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod
(Paris) 2016; 45: 1107–1114. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.12.011.
64. Bentley S, Mudan G, Strother C, Wong N: Are Live Ultrasound Models Replace-
able? Traditional versus Simulated Education Module for FAST Exam. West
J Emerg Med 2015; 16: 818–822. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.9.27276.
65. Le CK, Lewis J, Steinmetz P, Dyachenko A, Oleskevich S: e Use of Ultrasound
Simulators to Strengthen Scanning Skills in Medical Students: A Randomized
Controlled Trial. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38: 1249–1257. doi: 10.1002/jum.14805.
66. Andersen NL, Jensen RO, Konge L, Laursen CB, Falster C, Jacobsen N et al.: Im-
mersive Virtual Reality in Basic Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training: A Random-
ized Controlled Trial. Ultrasound Med Biol 2023; 49: 178–185. doi: 10.1016/j.
ultrasmedbio.2022.08.012.
67. Bowman A, Reid D, Bobby Harreveld R, Lawson C: Evaluation of post-simulation
sonographer students’ professional behaviour in the workplace. Radiography
(Lond) 2022; 28: 889–896. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2022.06.010.
68. Hattle J: e Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education. Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 2015; 1: 79–91. doi: 10.1037/stl0000021.
69. Johri AM, Durbin J, Newbigging J, Tanzola R, Chow R, De S, Tam J: Cardiac Point-
of-Care Ultrasound: State-of-the-Art in Medical School Education. J Am Soc
Echocardiogr 2018; 31: 749–760. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2018.01.014.
70. Bjerrum F, omsen ASS, Nayahangan LJ, Konge L: Surgical simulation: Current
practices and future perspectives for technical skills training. Med Teach 2018; 40:
668–675. doi: 10.1080/0142159x.2018.1472754.

Page 8 of 8
Daum et al. • J Ultrason 2025; 25: 14
71. AlQhtani A, AlSwedan N, Almulhim A, Aladwan R, Alessa Y, AlQhtani K et al.:
Online versus classroom teaching for medical students during COVID-19: mea-
suring eectiveness and satisfaction. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21: 452. doi: 10.1186/
s12909-021-02888-1.
72. Lewiss RE, Homann B, Beaulieu Y, Phelan MB: Point-of-care ultrasound edu-
cation: the increasing role of simulation and multimedia resources. J Ultrasound
Med 2014; 33: 27–32. doi: 10.7863/ultra.33.1.27.
73. Lane N, Lahham S, Joseph L, Bahner DP, Fox JC: Ultrasound in medical education:
listening to the echoes of the past to shape avision for the future. Eur J Trauma
Emerg Surg 2015; 41: 461–467. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0535-7.
74. Cawthorn TR, Nickel C, O’Reilly M, Kaa H, Tam JW, Jackson LC et al.: De-
velopment and evaluation of methodologies for teaching focused cardiac ultra-
sound skills to medical students. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014; 27: 302–309. doi:
10.1016/j.echo.2013.12.006.
75. Vallee A, Blacher J, Cariou A, Sorbets E: Blended Learning Compared to Tradi-
tional Learning in Medical Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e16504. doi: 10.2196/16504.
76. Back SJ, Darge K, Bedoya MA, Delgado J, Gorfu Y, Zewdneh D et al.: Ultrasound
Tutorials in Under 10 Minutes: Experience and Results. AJR Am J Roentgenol
2016; 207: 653–660. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16402.
77. Delungahawatta T, Dunne SS, Hyde S, Halpenny L, McGrath D, O’Regan Aet al.:
Advances in e-learning in undergraduate clinical medicine: asystematic review.
BMC Med Educ 2022; 22: 711. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03773-1.
78. Gunabushanam G, Nautsch F, Mills I, Scoutt LM. Accessible Personal Ultra-
sound Training Simulator. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38: 1425–1432. doi: 10.1002/
jum.14820.
79. MFT Medizinischer Fakultätentag der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V. Na-
tionaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog Medizin (NKLM) 2015. Available
from: https://medizinische-fakultaeten.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/nklm_-
nal_2015-12-04.pdf. (access: 20.01.2025)