ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2024
Point-of-care ultrasound Usage and accuracy within a Canadian urology division.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in acute pediatric scrotum: enhancing clinical decision-making.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Making strides in POCUS training in urology.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis research evaluates the utility and precision of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in urology, inspired by recent affirmations of its feasibility and value.1,2 Our study provides valuable insights for urologists about POCUS's practical usage.
methodsA prospective study assessed POCUS usage and accuracy in the University of Alberta's Division of Urology using data from April 4, 2022, to April 4, 2023. Data include POCUS indications, findings, and correlation with the final diagnosis/gold standard. Additionally, a qualitative survey was conducted among urologists and residents about POCUS's pros, cons, and barriers to integration.
resultsThirty-three patients underwent POCUS examinations, mainly for suspected hydronephrosis (27%, n=9). Other indications included urinary retention, testicular mass, torsion, cryptorchidism, renal mass, extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST ) exams, nephrostomy tube placement confirmation, and scrotal hematomas. POCUS findings matched the final diagnosis in most cases, showing 86% sensitivity, with an average exam time of 1-5 minutes. POCUS showed potential for suprapubic tube insertions. Residents (60%, n=20) were the most frequent users, followed by staff (33%, n=10), and students (6%, n=2). The surveyed urologists and residents expressed comfort with POCUS but cited time, cost, and practicality as barriers.
conclusionsPOCUS proves accurate and beneficial in urology, particularly for hydronephrosis. Most findings align with the gold standard, and the average exam time is brief. Barriers include time and cost. Further research is necessary to evaluate cost-effectiveness and POCUS's impact on patient outcomes in routine urologic practice.
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.