SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2023
Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in adult non-traumatic emergency medicine: an umbrella review.BMC medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a multi-model teaching strategy to train emergency medicine residents to use point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for assessment of shock.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Venous dimension of shock: Integrating arterial inflow and venous back-pressure in hemodynamic assessment.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond the oscillometric cuff: the utility of point-of-care ultrasound-derived blood pressure in shock.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Cell Death in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets.MedComm · 2026Review
- HIMAP POCUS protocol for early evaluation of undifferentiated shocked patients at the emergency department: A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026Article
- The Role of PoCUS in the Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-Guided Mini Fluid Challenge via Velocity-Time Integral to Assess Fluid Responsiveness in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Quasi-Experimental Feasibility Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pre-hospital and emergency department point-of-care ultrasound in cardiovascular emergencies: a scoping review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Point-of-care ultrasound in hemodynamically unstable pulmonary embolism.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Current Use and Barriers to POCUS in Women's Health: A National Survey of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.POCUS journal · 2026Article
- Development of a Deep Learning-Based Feedback Model to Assist Medical Students Learning Renal Ultrasound Acquisition: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Review
- 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
- The role of thoracic ultrasound in fluid management in critical care: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Bedside thoracic echography in ICU: new insights for acute circulatory and respiratory failure.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Performance evaluation of the TE Air wireless handheld ultrasound in cardiac applications: a prospective comparative study.The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
- Governance Considerations for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: a HIMSS-SIIM Enterprise Imaging Community Whitepaper in Collaboration with AIUM.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Expert consensus statement on the evaluation, treatment, and transfer of cardiogenic shock using a Delphi method approach: a report of the Japan Critical Care Cardiology Committee (J4 CS).Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Prognostic Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Patients With Suspected Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review.Circulation reports · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculatory failure is classified into four types of shock (obstructive, cardiogenic, distributive, and hypovolemic) that must be distinguished as each requires a different treatment. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used in clinical practice for acute conditions, and several diagnostic protocols using POCUS for shock have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in identifying the etiology of shock.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) until June 15, 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for each type of shock. The study protocol was prospectively registered in UMIN-CTR (UMIN 000048025).
resultsOf the 1553 studies identified, 36 studies were full-text reviewed, and 12 studies with 1132 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.91] and 0.98 [95% CI 0.92-0.99] for obstructive shock, 0.78 [95% CI 0.56-0.91] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] for cardiogenic shock, 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94] and 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] for hypovolemic shock, and 0.79 [95% CI 0.71-0.85] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-0.98] for distributive shock, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each type of shock was approximately 0.95. The positive likelihood ratios for each type of shock were all greater than 10, especially 40 [95% CI 11-105] for obstructive shock. The negative likelihood ratio for each type of shock was approximately 0.2.
conclusionsThe identification of the etiology for each type of shock using POCUS was characterized by high sensitivity and positive likelihood ratios, especially for obstructive shock.
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.