Bedside ultrasound, a term that comes up repeatedly in medical school, is becoming increasingly valuable in almost all fields of medicine. This tool is being integrated into preclinical training, yet it seems that medical students are not using it on the ward. Why is this? Lack of resources? Lack of teaching? It certainly isn’t lack of student interest.
Students are beginning to recognize the relevance of bedside ultrasound to their future careers and have begun to question why it isn’t a higher priority in undergraduate medical education. Many of our peers are even seeking ultrasound training outside of curricular time. Interestingly, it seems as though students think bedside teaching would improve their skills the most, yet a lack of clinical time and opportunity may be the biggest barrier to their learning. Despite infrastructure being available (ultrasound machines and trained faculty), many students have described limited hands-on opportunities and preceptors who were hesitant to share the probes. Admittedly, there are exponentially increasing demands on curricular time and some faculty believe that teaching ultrasound is not appropriate at the undergraduate level as it could lead to misdiagnosis or to distraction from learning important physical examination skills. This raises questions of how high a priority undergraduate ultrasound education should be and who should shoulder the burden of that education. Should students be taking more initiative in their learning, or should we expand the curriculum?
We acknowledge the potential bias our perspective brings and are interested in hearing our preceptors’ opinions. Do they feel it is a priority, and are they comfortable enough with techniques to be teaching? One thing is certain: bedside ultrasound is improving patient outcomes and decreasing costs to the system. If students are not receiving the hands-on teaching they need to learn it, who will use it in the future?
—Ali Silver, BSc
—Sarah Fraser, BSc
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org