Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34846557›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2022

Establishing a risk assessment framework for point-of-care ultrasound.

Thomas W Conlon, Nadya Yousef, Juan Mayordomo-Colunga, Cecile Tissot, Maria V Fraga, Shazia Bhombal, Pradeep Suryawanshi, Alberto Medina Villanueva, Bijan Siassi, Yogen Singh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Implementation and adoption of neonatal point-of-care ultrasound across a regional collaborative: a multicenter survey.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Neonatal point-of-care ultrasound-steps for program development.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  4. Neonatal point-of-care ultrasound-guidelines for training, credentialing and quality assurance.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Thomas W ConlonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Nadya YousefDivision of Pediatrics and Neonatal Critical Care, Antoine Béclère Medical Center, APHP, South Paris University Hospitals, Paris, France.
Juan Mayordomo-ColungaPediatric Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.
Cecile TissotDepartment of Pediatrics, Chêne-Bougeries, Clinique des Grangettes, Geneva, Switzerland.
Maria V FragaDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Shazia BhombalDivision of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children Hospital Stanford, Stanford, CA, USA.
Pradeep SuryawanshiDepartment of Neonatology, Bharati Vidyapeeth University Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Alberto Medina VillanuevaPediatric Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.
Bijan SiassiDepartment of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4308-3753
Yogen SinghDepartment of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, CA, USA, and Depart of Pediatrics - Neonatology and Paediatric Cardiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5207-9019
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia · USUniversidad de Oviedo · ESAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRBharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University · INHirslanden Clinique des Grangettes · CHLoma Linda University · USLucile Packard Children's Hospital · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) refers to the use of portable ultrasound (US) applications at the bedside, performed directly by the treating physician, for either diagnostic or procedure guidance purposes. It is being rapidly adopted by traditionally non-imaging medical specialties across the globe. Recent international evidence-based guidelines on POCUS for critically ill neonates and children were issued by the POCUS Working Group of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). Currently there are no standardized national or international guidelines for its implementation into clinical practice or even the training curriculum to monitor quality assurance. Further, there are no definitions or methods of POCUS competency measurement across its varied clinical applications.

conclusionThe Hippocratic Oath suggests medical providers do no harm to their patients. In our continued quest to uphold this value, providers seeking solutions to clinical problems must often weigh the benefit of an intervention with the risk of harm to the patient. Technologies to guide diagnosis and medical management present unique considerations when assessing possible risk to the patient. Frequently risk extends beyond the patient and impacts providers and the institutions in which they practice. POCUS is an emerging technology increasingly incorporated in the care of children across varied clinical specialties. Concerns have been raised by clinical colleagues and regulatory agencies regarding appropriate POCUS use and oversight. We present a framework for assessing the risk of POCUS use in pediatrics and suggest methods of mitigating risk to optimize safety and outcomes for patients, providers, and institutions. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The use POCUS by traditionally non-imaging pediatric specialty physicians for both diagnostic and procedural guidance is rapidly increasing. • Although there are international guidelines for its indications, currently there is no standardized guidance on its implementation in clinical practice. WHAT IS NEW: • Although standards for pediatric specialty-specific POCUS curriculum and training to competency have not been defined, POCUS is likely to be most successfully incorporated in clinical care when programmatic infrastructural elements are present. • Risk assessment is a forward-thinking process and requires an imprecise calculus that integrates considerations of the technology, the provider, and the context in which medical care is delivered. Medicolegal considerations vary across countries and frequently change, requiring providers and institutions to understand local regulatory requirements and legal frameworks to mitigate the potential risks of POCUS.

Indexed as

CurriculumPoint-of-Care SystemsChildHumansInfant, NewbornPoint-of-Care TestingRisk AssessmentUltrasonographyChildrenFrameworkNeonatesPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)Risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34846557
PMCPMC8964607
OpenAlexW3210056041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.