ArticleThe ultrasound journal2022
Quality assessment of point-of-care ultrasound reports for patients at the emergency department treated by internists.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining minimum image quality criteria for common diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound images: A position statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Review
- Early, Supervised Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training for Internal Medicine Interns: A Quality Improvement Initiative.Cureus · 2026Article
- A core curriculum for pediatric lung ultrasound: an expert consensus.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Data quality assessment in emergency medical services: an objective approach.BMC emergency medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPOCUS (point-of-care ultrasound) is an important diagnostic tool for several medical specialties. To provide safe patient care, the quality of this exam should be as high as possible. This includes solid documentation with a written report and the availability of images for review. However, international guidelines or publications about this quality assessment and its application in clinical practice are scarce.
methodsWe designed a criteria-checklist to evaluate the quality of POCUS examinations. This checklist was made based on international guidelines and protocols and was validated by a Dutch expert group using the nominal group technique (NGT). All POCUS exams in general internal medicine patients documented between August 2019 and November 2020 in our ED were evaluated using this checklist.
resultsA total of 169 exams were included. In general, the compliance for most important criteria was high, but not optimal. A clinical question or indication for the POCUS exam was stated in 75.7% of cases. The completeness of all standard views differed per indication, but was lower when more than one standard view was required. Labels were provided in 83.5% of the saved images, while 90.8% of all examinations showed a written conclusion.
conclusionsOur research showed that the overall quality of documentation varies with regard to several important criteria. Suboptimal compliance of documentation may have adverse effects on patient safety. We have developed a checklist which can be used to improve POCUS documentation.
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.