ArticleCureus2023
Quantifying Clinically Meaningful Point-of-Care Ultrasound Interpretation Discrepancies Using an Emergency Department Quality Assurance Program.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Description of an independently developed quality assessment tool to meet emergency department credentialing and Emergency Ultrasound Fellowship Accreditation Council guidelines.The ultrasound journal · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmergency medicine professional associations recommend that quality assurance (QA) programs be implemented wherever emergency department (ED) point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is in use. The purpose of this study is to identify the rate of clinically meaningful interpretation discrepancies between initial ED POCUS interpretation and a gold standard using a QA program in a Canadian academic ED.
methodsAll POCUS examinations completed in our ED are subject to a QA process. The results of all POCUS examinations undergoing this process from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, were retrospectively reviewed. Four blinded abstractors collected data with a standardized tool after a training session. Information regarding patient demographics, POCUS indication, emergency physician initial POCUS interpretation, physician POCUS expertise, the presence of an interpretation discrepancy, and whether the discrepancy was clinically meaningful was abstracted. The proportion of interpretation discrepancies, clinically meaningful discrepancies, discrepancies requiring remedial action, and differences in discrepancy rates between non-expert and expert sonographers were analyzed.
resultsA total of 2,869 POCUS studies were included for review, with 2,668 in the final data set after exclusions. In total, only 1.4% of all scans contained an interpretation discrepancy. The rate of clinically meaningful discrepancies was 0.5%, and the rate of scans requiring remedial action was 0.1%. Overall, 85.5% of all scans were performed by four POCUS expert physicians, with the remainder by a non-expert. Scans performed by non-expert sonographers were significantly more prone to discrepancies than those performed by experts. No single scan indication was more prone to discrepancy.
conclusionsThe overall ED POCUS interpretation discrepancy rate and clinically meaningful discrepancy rate identified using our QA process were very low. The findings are limited by the small group of expert sonographers completing most scans.
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.