Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A recent study on patients with acute lower limb ischemia showed that the proportion of inadequate examination of lower extremity circulation was associated with higher rate of amputation and death. The aim of this systematic review was to explore evidence for how practical competence in performing a peripheral vascular status of the lower limb among medical students and junior doctors should be taught and examined. METHODS: The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was published in PROSPERO. Articles were searched for in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase. The result was processed by two researchers. After title- and abstract screenings, articles were scrutinized in full text for inclusion, result extraction, risk of bias assessment through Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), and evidence grading with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Two studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study samples varied between medical students (n = 9), junior doctors (n = 3) and residents (n = 3). Interventions varied between theoretical, practical, repetitive training, feedback-based learning, and clinical experience. Assessed measurements (outcomes) were ankle-brachial index (ABI) (n = 9), theoretical knowledge (n = 4), pulse palpation (n = 1) and complete vascular status (n = 1). Experienced residents had better theoretical knowledge than inexperienced residents, but performance of the entire ABI procedure without any mistake according to guidelines was inadequate in both groups. One RCT showed that experimental training significantly increased ability to perform ABI measurements, but this ability decreased after six months without repetition. CONCLUSION: Theoretical training alone is not sufficient in ensuring proficiency in vascular examination of the lower limbs. Continuous practice and clinical exposure are crucial to maintain proficiency in performing vascular examination of the lower limbs. Data is limited and heterogenous. The level of certainty for the evidence was judged to be very low.