ReviewJournal of intensive care medicine2022
Handheld Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Safety Considerations for Creating Guidelines.
Review in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status and barriers of ultrasonography utilization among general surgeons in Türkiye: Results of a nationwide survey.Turkish journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Usefulness of air sonographic artifacts in clinical diagnosis.Medical gas research · 2026Article
- Article
- Outcomes of a quasiexperimental study of a hands-on POCUS curriculum in undergraduate medical education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Rapid bedside multimodal ultrasound screening for acute type A aortic dissection: a perspective.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) diagnosis of rib fractures.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2025Review
- Article
- Performance and development trends of ultrasound diagnostic systems in military settings: a review.The ultrasound journal · 2025Review
- AI-Assisted LVEF Assessment Using a Handheld Ultrasound Device: A Single-Center Comparative Study Against Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Updates on Methods for Body Composition Analysis: Implications for Clinical Practice.Current obesity reports · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound Compared to Chest Radiography for Diagnosing Pneumonia in Children: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024Article
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Emergency Department: Training, Perceptions, Applications, and Barriers from Different Healthcare Professionals.Journal of acute medicine · 2024Article
- Point of care ultrasonography as the new "Laennec Sthetoscope".World journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use in Rural Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompared to traditional ultrasound machines, emerging handheld point-of-care-ultrasound (HPOCUS) systems exhibit superior portability and affordability. Thus, they have been increasingly embraced in the intensive care setting. However, there is scarce data on patient safety and current regulatory body guidelines are lacking. Here, we critically appraise the literature with a focus on the merits, concerns, and framework of existing POCUS guidelines. Subsequently, we provide recommendations for future regulatory guidelines.
methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed database employing the key words "point-of-care/handheld/portable ultrasound" and "guidelines" alone, in combination, and using thesaurus terms. Eligible articles were scrutinized for description of potential benefits and concerns of HPOCUS, especially from a patient safety perspective, as well as currently existing POCUS practice guidelines. Data was extracted, reported thematically using a narrative synthesis approach, then subsequently used to guide our proposed guidelines.
resultsThe most widely reported benefits of HPOCUS include superior portability, affordability, imaging, facilitation of expedited diagnosis and management, and integration with medical workplace flow. However, major barriers to adoption include device security/patient confidentiality and patient safety. Furthermore, except for a policy published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) in 2018, there are few other national regulatory guidelines pertaining to handheld POCUS. In light of this, we propose a framework for HPOCUS guideline development to address these and other concerns. Such guidelines include training and credentialing, bioengineering approval, and strategic integration with electronic medical record systems.
conclusionHPOCUS can be a powerful tool for expedited diagnosis and management guidance. However, there is limited data regarding patient safety and current regulatory body guidelines are lacking. Our assessment illuminates that there remain many unsolved problems about HPOCUS, and in turn, we propose guidelines to address safe regulation and implementation.
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.