Table 3.
Reviewers’ assessment of point-of-care ultrasound imaging and analysis by clinical officers: Aweil, South Sudan
| Question | Measure | Reviewer 1 (355 studies) | Reviewer 2 (356 studies) | Average of scores (including 3rd reviewer when there was a discrepancy between reviewers 1 and 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACEP Quality Assurance 5-point Grading Scale17 | Mean | 3.9 (3.8–3.9) | 4.6 (4.5–4.6) | 4.11 |
| 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0% | |
| 3 | 50 (14.2) | 6 (1.7) | 14% | |
| 4 | 299 (84.9) | 140 (39.3) | 58% | |
| 5 | 3 (0.9) | 210 (58.9) | 27% | |
| Are the images taken appropriate? | Yes | 355 (100) | 356 (100) | 99% |
| Is the analysis acceptable? | Yes | 294 (82.8) | 336 (94.4) | 86% |
| No | 61 (17.2) | 20 (5.6) | 14% | |
| Time to review study | Median [IQR] | 3 [3–3] | 5 [4–5] | – |