ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Point of Care Ultrasonography for the Septic Patient in the Emergency Department: A Literature Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can FoCUS Speed Up the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Sepsis biomarkers: recent advances and future perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Point-of-care ultrasound in emergency department sepsis and septic shock: a pragmatic framework for source-oriented assessment and physiologic reassessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Assessing Point-of-care Ultrasound Knowledge and Utilization among Emergency Physicians in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional Survey.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Does Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affect Fluid Resuscitation Volume in Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Review.Emergency medicine international · 2024Article
- Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2023Review
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Multimodal Tool for the Management of Sepsis in the Emergency Department.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been effectively used in intensive care units for the management of septic patients. Since it is a time- and cost-effective non-invasive imaging modality, its use in the emergency department (ED) has been advocated for by medical experts. This review summarizes the existing literature regarding the breadth of POCUS as a supplementary tool to the holistic approach of septic patients in the ED setting. A literature search was conducted via PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases, analyzing studies which examined the use of POCUS in the ED for non-traumatic, septic, and/or undifferentiated hypotensive patients, resulting in 26 studies. The first cluster of studies investigates the efficiency of POCUS protocols in the differential diagnosis and its reliability for distributive/septic shock and sepsis management. In the second cluster, POCUS use results in faster sepsis cause identification and improves therapeutic management. The third cluster confirms that POCUS aids in the accurate diagnosis and management, even in rare and complicated cases. The results of the present review support the well-documented utility of POCUS and highlight the importance of POCUS incorporation in the comprehensive management of the septic patient in the ED setting.
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.