Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35118909›Full record

ReviewJournal of intensive care medicine2022

Handheld Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Safety Considerations for Creating Guidelines.

Adam Hsieh, Maxwell B Baker, Joseph M Phalen, Julio Mejias-Garcia, Alan Hsieh, Alex Hsieh, Robert Canelli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) diagnosis of rib fractures.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Barriers and Facilitators to Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use in Rural Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
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

7 authors.

Adam Hsieh7938Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CAN.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-3215
Maxwell B Baker12255Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Joseph M Phalen12296Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Julio Mejias-Garcia12259Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Alan Hsieh12235Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine, and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Alex Hsieh25428Department of Emergency Medicine, St. John's Riverside Hospital, Yonkers, NY, USA.
Robert Canelli12259Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5645-578X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Point-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingCritical CareHumansUltrasonographyguidelineshandheld point-of-care ultrasound (HPOCUS)patient safetyregulation

Identifiers

PMID35118909
PMCPMC9393648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.