采用斑点追踪超声心动图（STE）自动分析技术对超声心动图初学者进行室壁运动评估训练反馈，同传统教学法对比，明确STE在室壁运动评估自主教学中的价值。

纳入2022年7月至2022年9月在空军军医大学唐都医院学习的无超声心动图基础的医学专业本科生40名，随机分为传统教学组20名和STE自主教学组20名。传统教学组由一名高年资超声心动图医师进行教学和指导，STE自主教学组通过二维动态图像和应变分析结果进行对比反馈训练。经过两阶段（每阶段25例图像）的教学训练，计算并比较2组对室壁运动评估的异常检出率、正常排除率和总体符合率，并对不同切面第二阶段的组间及组内考核成绩以及不同节段第二阶段的组间及组内考核成绩进行比较分析，以探究差异原因。

传统教学组和STE自主教学组基线测试及第一阶段考核中的异常检出率、正常排除率和总体符合率差异无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。第二阶段考核中，传统教学组的异常检出率和总体符合率均优于STE自主教学组（异常检出率：73.4% vs 56.8%，总体符合率：72.9% vs 64.0%，P均＜0.05）。传统教学组在心尖二腔切面的异常检出率、正常排除率和总体符合率，心尖三腔切面的异常检出率和总体符合率，心尖四腔切面的异常检出率和总体符合率均优于STE自主教学组（P均＜0.05）；2组组内各切面间各指标成绩差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。传统教学组在基底段和中间段的异常检出率和总体符合率优于STE自主教学组（P＜0.05）；传统教学组对心尖段的异常检出率高于基底段和中间段（P均＜0.05）；STE自主教学组基底段、中间段和心尖段的异常检出率逐渐升高，心尖段的总体符合率高于基底段和中间段（P均＜0.05）。

STE自主教学对初学者室壁运动评估的早期训练效果能够达到与传统教学相似的水平，但在随后的训练中出现瓶颈，对基底段和中间段的室壁运动判断能力较差。

To evaluate the value of self-teaching of wall motion evaluation through feedback training by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) for beginners in comparison with traditional teaching mode.

From July 2022 to September 2022, 40 medical undergraduates without echocardiographic knowledge who were studying in the Tangdu Hospital, Air Force Medical University were recruited and randomly divided into either a traditional teaching (TT) group or an STE self-teaching (ST) group. Students in the TT group were tutored by a senior echocardiographer for wall motion evaluation, and students in the ST group were trained through comparison and feedback between two-dimensional cineloop and strain results by themselves. Both groups underwent a two-stage training session (25 cases each stage). The abnormal detection rate, normal exclusion rate and overall coincidence rate were calculated and compared between the two groups. Further view- and segment-based comparisons of results between and within groups in the second-stage test were also performed.

The abnormal detection rate, normal exclusion rate, and overall coincidence rate were similar between the TT and ST groups in both baseline and first-stage tests (P＞0.05 for all). In the second-stage test, the abnormal detection rate and overall coincidence rate were better in the TT group than in the ST group (abnormal detection rate, 73.4% vs 56.8%; overall coincidence rate, 72.9% vs 64.0%; P＜0.05 for both). The abnormal detection rate, normal exclusion rate, and overall coincidence rate in the apical two chamber view, and the abnormal detection rate and overall coincidence rate in the apical three and four chamber views were all significantly better in the TT group than in the ST group (P＜0.05 for all), but the results between different views within both groups were not significantly different (P＞0.05 for all). The abnormal detection rate and overall coincidence rate in basal and middle segments were better in the TT group than in the ST group (P＜0.05). In the TT group, the abnormal detection rate in apical segments was higher than that in basal and middle segments (P＜0.05). The abnormal detection rate gradually increased from basal to middle to apical segments in the ST group, and the overall coincidence rate was higher in apical segments than in basal and middle segments (P＜0.05).

The early training effects of STE ST mode are similar to those of TT mode for wall motion evaluation in beginners. However, STE ST comes to the plateau without further improvement due to the lack of guidance during the following training, leading to lower performance than TT mode, especially in the basal and middle segments.