ArticleFamily practice2012
Assessment of left ventricular function by GPs using pocket-sized ultrasound.
Article in Family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound in General Practice: A Systematic Review.Annals of family medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Point-of-care ultrasound improves the diagnosis of heart failure in patients with dyspnea in primary care.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Automatic quantification of left ventricular function by medical students using ultrasound.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound for general practitioners: a systematic needs assessment.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2020Article
- Canadian national survey of family medicine residents on point-of-care ultrasound training.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound in primary care: a systematic review of generalist performed point-of-care ultrasound in unselected populations.The ultrasound journal · 2019Review
- Hand-held cardiac ultrasound examinations performed in primary care patients by nonexperts to identify reduced ejection fraction.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- A systematic review of pocket-sized imaging devices: small and mighty?Echo research and practice · 2018Article
- The connected health of cardiovascular medicine: current status and future directions.QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians · 2013Review
- [Usefulness and reliability of point of care ultrasound in Family Medicine: Focused ultrasound in neck and emergency].Atencion primariaArticle
- A Clinician's Guide to the Implementation of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Outpatient Practice.Journal of primary care & community healthReview
- Integrated care services: lessons learned from the deployment of the NEXES project.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of left ventricular (LV) function with echocardiography is mandatory in patients with suspected heart failure (HF).
objectivesTo investigate if GPs were able to evaluate the LV function in patients at risk of developing or with established HF by using pocket-sized ultrasound (pUS).
methodsFeasibility study in general practice, seven GPs in three different Norwegian primary care centres participated. Ninety-two patients with reduced or at risk of developing reduced LV function were examined by their own GP using pUS. The scan (<5 minute) was done as part of a routine appointment. A cardiologist examined the patients <30 minutes afterwards with both a laptop scanner and pUS. Measurements of the septal mitral annular excursion (sMAE) were compared.
resultsIn 87% of the patients, the GPs were able to obtain a standard view and measure the sMAE. There was a non-significant mean difference in sMAE between GP pUS and cardiologist laptop scanner of -0.15 mm 95% confidence interval (-0.60 to 0.30) mm. A comparison of the pUS recordings and measurements of sMAE made by GP versus cardiologist revealed a non-significant mean difference with acceptable 95% limits of agreement (-0.26 ± 3.02 mm).
conclusionsWith tailored training, GPs were able to assess LV function with sMAE and pUS. pUS, as a supplement to the physical examination, may become an important tool in general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.