. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019 Apr 24;18(6):474–483. doi: 10.1177/1474515119845972

Table 3.

Student-performed LUS on patients.

First author Year Country	Patients n (# of LUS exams)	Patient population	Students n (school year)	LUS aim	# zones	Positive one Positive overall	Didactic training; hands-on training	Reference standard	Image adequacy and diagnostic accuracy
Mai 2013²⁴ United States	27 (5)	Outpatient cardiology and healthy volunteers who were asymptomatic	3 (not reported)	B-lines	Two	≥ 3 B-lines B-lines in ≥ 1 lung apices	0 h; < 1 h brief device orientation	Expert LUS and image review	Image adequacy: 100% Diagnostic accuracy: Sens. 40%, Spec. 100%
Andersen 2014²¹ Norway	211 (59)	Inpatients and outpatients	30 (5)	B-lines, pleural effusion	Two	Not reported	< 1 h; ~8 h (including all POC techniques)	Expert image review	Image adequacy: 93% (95% CI: 84.3–98.2) Diagnostic accuracy: Sens. 90.5% (95% CI: 68.8–97.6), Spec. 94.7% (95% CI: 82.2–99.4)
Udrea 2017²⁶ United States	482 (47)	ED, patients requiring lung exam, and healthy volunteers	5 (1)	B-lines, pleural effusion	Six	≥ 3 B-lines Evidence of pleural effusion	18 h; ~13 h (including all POC techniques)	Expert image review	Agreement with expert diagnosis: 95.7%

LUS: lung ultrasound; CI: confidence interval; POC: point of care; ED: Emergency Department; Sens.: sensitivity; Spec.: specificity