ArticleJournal of family & community medicine2014
Trends in ultrasound examination in family practice.
Article in Journal of family & community medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of diagnostic ultrasound by primary care physicians in Switzerland - a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Trends in utilisation of ultrasound by older Australians (2010-2019).BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Article
- Study on the effects of arm abduction angle and cushion support during sonographic examination on the stiffness of supraspinatus muscle of sonographers using shear wave elastography.Journal of occupational health · 2021Article
- The use of ultrasound in primary care: longitudinal billing and cross-sectional survey study in Switzerland.BMC family practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound examination is very frequently used for the evaluation of abnormalities in various organs of the body. Our aim was to determine whether the requests by family physicians (FPs) for ultrasound examinations were appropriate. Our secondary objective was to enumerate positive and negative ultrasound reports for various diagnostic indications. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted during the period of month between June and August 2010, at the Family Medicine Department of North West Armed Forces Prince Salman Hospital, Tabuk. We reviewed the ultrasound requests of all patients included in this study and the findings of the procedure. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), version 16.0.
resultsThe requests and reports of 815 patients for ultrasound were reviewed. Females comprised 58.7% of the referred cases. The mean age of the sample at referral was 30 ± 18.5 for females and 34 ± 20.7 for males. Only 46% of the request forms contained conclusive information and instructions. Abdominal/pelvic ultrasounds were the most frequently requested; Nearly 71.2% of the ultrasound scans were normal. Abdominal/pelvis ultrasound was more likely to be reported as normal than ultrasound scans of other regions (P = 0.007). Patients aged 41-60 years were more likely to have an abnormal ultrasound (P = 0.02).
conclusionOur findings suggest that FPs have to be educated about imaging referral protocols in order to achieve better outcomes.
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.