Medical EducationNCT07790497
Video-Based Versus Bedside eFAST Training in Final-Year Medical Students
A study testing Standardized Video-Based eFAST Training and Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training in people with Medical Education and Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS), run by Gorkem Alper Solakoglu at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This study compared two methods of teaching the Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) examination to final-year medical students. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a 60-minute standardized video-based training session or a 60-minute instructor-led bedside training… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Medical Education, Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS), eFast
- What is being tested?
- Standardized Video-Based eFAST Training and Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2025to 30 Nov 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Current enrollment as a final-year (sixth-year) medical student at İstanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine.
- Participation in the emergency medicine clerkship during the study period. Provision of written informed consent before randomization.
Who cannot join
- Previous formal ultrasound training. Prior practical ultrasound experience. A physical condition that could interfere with performing an ultrasound examination.
- Declining or not providing written informed consent.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Istanbul Medeniyet University
Kadıköy, Istanbul
About this study
Official title: Comparative Effectiveness of Video-Based and Bedside Teaching for eFAST Training in Final-Year Medical Students: A Randomised Controlled Educational Trial
This study compared two methods of teaching the Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) examination to final-year medical students. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a 60-minute standardized video-based training session or a 60-minute instructor-led bedside training session. Both groups received the same educational content, for the same duration, from the same instructor.
Within one hour after completing the training, each participant performed an individual eFAST examination on a healthy volunteer. Performance was assessed by an evaluator who was unaware of the participant's training group, using an eFAST Image Acquisition Checklist. The study compared overall immediate eFAST performance between the two teaching methods and also examined performance in individual eFAST examination windows.
Read the detailed description
This was a single-center, parallel-group, individually randomized educational trial involving final-year medical students undertaking an emergency medicine clerkship. Participants with previous formal ultrasound training or prior practical ultrasound experience were excluded. One hundred consenting participants were randomized, with 50 assigned to standardized video-based eFAST training and 50 assigned to instructor-led bedside eFAST training.
Both interventions lasted 60 minutes and covered the same theoretical and practical eFAST content. Participants underwent an individual practical assessment on a healthy volunteer within one hour after training. Outcome assessors were blinded to training allocation. Performance was assessed using an eFAST Image Acquisition Checklist, which generated an overall score ranging from 0 to 100 and window-specific classifications of error-free performance.
No primary outcome was designated in advance of the analysis. For the present report and retrospective trial registration, the overall eFAST performance score is designated as the primary outcome, while the window-level comparisons are considered exploratory secondary outcomes.
- Conditions
- Medical Education, Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS), eFast
- Being tested
- Standardized Video-Based eFAST Training, Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training
- Keywords
- eFAST, point-of-care ultrasound, randomised controlled trial, medical education, bedside teaching, video-based learning
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Standardized Video-Based eFAST TrainingOther
Participants watched a standardized 60-minute instructional video covering the theoretical principles and practical performance of eFAST. The video was recorded on a healthy volunteer and included demonstrations of the examination with visual annotation. Content included the principles and clinical indications of eFAST, ultrasound physics, examination windows, transducer selection, probe positioning and orientation, image optimization, normal anatomical landmarks, and representative pathological images.
Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST TrainingOther
Participants received a 60-minute instructor-led bedside training session delivered by the same emergency physician on a healthy volunteer. The session covered the same theoretical and practical eFAST content as the video-based intervention and included live demonstration of each examination window followed by supervised practice, during which each participant performed the examination once under direct guidance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Video-Based eFAST Training | Experimental | Participants received a 60-minute standardized video-based eFAST training session. The video was recorded on a healthy volunteer and covered the theoretical principles and practical performance of eFAST, including clinical indications, ultrasound physics, examination windows, transducer selection, probe positioning and orientation, image optimization, normal anatomical landmarks, and representative pathological images. Receives: Other: Standardized Video-Based eFAST Training |
| Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training | Active comparator | Participants received a 60-minute instructor-led bedside eFAST training session on a healthy volunteer. The session covered the same theoretical and practical content as the video-based intervention and included live demonstration of each eFAST examination window followed by supervised practice, during which each participant performed the examination once under direct guidance. Receives: Other: Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Overall eFAST Performance Score
Overall practical eFAST performance was assessed using the eFAST Image Acquisition and Interpretation Assessment Checklist. The checklist comprised 21 image-acquisition items across six eFAST windows and one image-differentiation component. Image-acquisition items contributed a maximum of 84 points and image differentiation contributed a maximum of 16 points, yielding a total score from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance. For this retrospective registration, the overall performance score is designated as the primary outcome; no primary outcome was prospectively designated before the analysis.
Measured: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Secondary outcomes (5)
Error-Free Anterior Lung Window Performance
Proportion of participants who completed all required steps for the anterior lung eFAST window correctly. Any incorrectly performed required step resulted in classification as not error-free.
Measured: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Subxiphoid Window Performance
Proportion of participants who completed all required steps for the subxiphoid eFAST window correctly. Any incorrectly performed required step resulted in classification as not error-free.
Measured: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Right Upper Quadrant Window Performance
Proportion of participants who completed all required steps for the right upper quadrant eFAST window.correctly. Any incorrectly performed required step resulted in classification as not error-free.
Measured: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Left Upper Quadrant Window Performance
Proportion of participants who completed all required steps for the left upper quadrant eFAST windowcorrectly. Any incorrectly performed required step resulted in classification as not error-free.
Measured: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Pelvic Window Performance
Proportion of participants who completed all required steps for the pelvic eFAST window correctly. Any incorrectly performed required step resulted in classification as not error-free.
Measured: ithin 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Aug 2026
- Study start1 Aug 2025
- Primary completion30 Nov 2025
- Study completion30 Nov 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Medical EducationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Single-center, parallel-group, individually randomized educational trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio and an immediate post-training assessment only.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Gorkem Alper Solakoglu
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Gorkem Alper Solakoglu, Istanbul Medeniyet University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07790497
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EFAST-EDU-2025-01
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 25 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 27 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified individual participant data underlying the reported results may be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Public deposition of individual-level data is not planned because the participant consent did not cover public data deposition. Requests will be considered in accordance with applicable ethical and institutional requirements.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Effectiveness of Video-Based and Bedside Teaching for eFAST Training in Final-Year Medical Students: A Randomised Controlled Educational Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07790497
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EFAST-EDU-2025-01
- Conditions
- Medical Education, Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS), eFast
- Keywords
- eFAST, point-of-care ultrasound, randomised controlled trial, medical education, bedside teaching, video-based learning
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Gorkem Alper SolakogluUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Nov 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study compared two methods of teaching the Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) examination to final-year medical students. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a 60-minute standardized video-based training session or a 60-minute instructor-led bedside training session. Both groups received the same educational content, for the same duration, from the same instructor.
Within one hour after completing the training, each participant performed an individual eFAST examination on a healthy volunteer. Performance was assessed by an evaluator who was unaware of the participant's training group, using an eFAST Image Acquisition Checklist. The study compared overall immediate eFAST performance between the two teaching methods and also examined performance in individual eFAST examination windows.
Detailed description
This was a single-center, parallel-group, individually randomized educational trial involving final-year medical students undertaking an emergency medicine clerkship. Participants with previous formal ultrasound training or prior practical ultrasound experience were excluded. One hundred consenting participants were randomized, with 50 assigned to standardized video-based eFAST training and 50 assigned to instructor-led bedside eFAST training.
Both interventions lasted 60 minutes and covered the same theoretical and practical eFAST content. Participants underwent an individual practical assessment on a healthy volunteer within one hour after training. Outcome assessors were blinded to training allocation. Performance was assessed using an eFAST Image Acquisition Checklist, which generated an overall score ranging from 0 to 100 and window-specific classifications of error-free performance.
No primary outcome was designated in advance of the analysis. For the present report and retrospective trial registration, the overall eFAST performance score is designated as the primary outcome, while the window-level comparisons are considered exploratory secondary outcomes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Single-center, parallel-group, individually randomized educational trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio and an immediate post-training assessment only.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Video-Based eFAST Training | Experimental | Other: Standardized Video-Based eFAST TrainingParticipants received a 60-minute standardized video-based eFAST training session. The video was recorded on a healthy volunteer and covered the theoretical principles and practical performance of eFAST, including clinical indications, ultrasound physics, examination windows, transducer selection, probe positioning and orientation, image optimization, normal anatomical landmarks, and representative pathological images. |
| Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training | Active comparator | Other: Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST TrainingParticipants received a 60-minute instructor-led bedside eFAST training session on a healthy volunteer. The session covered the same theoretical and practical content as the video-based intervention and included live demonstration of each eFAST examination window followed by supervised practice, during which each participant performed the examination once under direct guidance. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Current enrollment as a final-year (sixth-year) medical student at İstanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine.
- Participation in the emergency medicine clerkship during the study period. Provision of written informed consent before randomization.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Previous formal ultrasound training. Prior practical ultrasound experience. A physical condition that could interfere with performing an ultrasound examination.
- Declining or not providing written informed consent.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Standardized Video-Based eFAST TrainingParticipants watched a standardized 60-minute instructional video covering the theoretical principles and practical performance of eFAST. The video was recorded on a healthy volunteer and included demonstrations of the examination with visual annotation. Content included the principles and clinical indications of eFAST, ultrasound physics, examination windows, transducer selection, probe positioning and orientation, image optimization, normal anatomical landmarks, and representative pathological images. | Other | Video-Based eFAST Training |
| Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST TrainingParticipants received a 60-minute instructor-led bedside training session delivered by the same emergency physician on a healthy volunteer. The session covered the same theoretical and practical eFAST content as the video-based intervention and included live demonstration of each examination window followed by supervised practice, during which each participant performed the examination once under direct guidance. | Other | Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training |
Primary outcome
Overall eFAST Performance Score
Time frame: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Overall practical eFAST performance was assessed using the eFAST Image Acquisition and Interpretation Assessment Checklist. The checklist comprised 21 image-acquisition items across six eFAST windows and one image-differentiation component. Image-acquisition items contributed a maximum of 84 points and image differentiation contributed a maximum of 16 points, yielding a total score from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance. For this retrospective registration, the overall performance score is designated as the primary outcome; no primary outcome was prospectively designated before the analysis.
5 secondary outcomes
Error-Free Anterior Lung Window Performance
Time frame: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Subxiphoid Window Performance
Time frame: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Right Upper Quadrant Window Performance
Time frame: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Left Upper Quadrant Window Performance
Time frame: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Error-Free Pelvic Window Performance
Time frame: ithin 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Aug 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified individual participant data underlying the reported results may be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Public deposition of individual-level data is not planned because the participant consent did not cover public data deposition. Requests will be considered in accordance with applicable ethical and institutional requirements.
Related trials for Medical Education
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Federated Learning in Renal Tumor Model
Renal Tumors
Not yet recruiting
Generative AI-Assisted Personalized Feedback for Laparoscopic Skill Learning in Medical Undergraduates
Medical Education
Not yet recruiting
Comparing the Efficacy of a Conversational Agent (QuitBot) Versus Standard Health Education on Smoking Cessation Among Medical Students; A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Conversational Agent, Smoking Cessation
RecruitingObservational study
Artificial Intelligence for Automated Clinical Data Exploration From Electronic Medical Records (CardioMining-AI)
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning
Not yet recruiting
AI Smart Glasses Feedback for Intubation Training in Medical Students
Intubation, Intratracheal, Medical Education
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Standardized Video-Based eFAST Training and Instructor-Led Bedside eFAST Training in people with Medical Education and Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS), run by Gorkem Alper Solakoglu at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Overall eFAST Performance Score (time frame: Within 1 hour after completion of the assigned training session). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Aug 2026.