ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024
Agreement of point of care ultrasound and final clinical diagnosis in patients with acute heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock: POCUS not missing the target.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Utilizing Cardiac POCUS for the Diagnosis of Dynamic Mitral Regurgitation.POCUS journal · 2026Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound for evaluating acute dyspnoea in emergency departments: Systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound as a Key Diagnostic Tool in the Emergency Detection of Severe Pericardial Effusion.Cureus · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Heart Failure; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Review
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
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an important tool for clinical diagnosis and decision-making in critical and non-critical scenarios. Dyspnea, chest pain, and shock are conditions susceptible to evaluation with ultrasound considering diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact already proven. There is scarce evidence in diagnosis agreement using ultrasound as an extension of physical examination. We aimed to evaluate ED patients in whom POCUS was performed, to analyze agreement between clinical initial diagnosis using ultrasound images and final diagnosis. Furthermore, we analyze failed diagnosis, inconclusive POCUS exams, and discuss details. A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on adults who visited the emergency department with any of these three chief complaints: dyspnea, chest pain, and shock. All were evaluated with ultrasound at admission. Agreement between initial diagnosis using POCUS and final definite diagnosis was calculated. Failed diagnosis and inconclusive exams were analyzed. A total of 209 patients were analyzed. Populations: mostly males, mean age 64 years old, hypertensive. Agreement on patients with dyspnea and suspicion of acute decompensated heart failure was 0.98; agreement on chest pain suspicion of non-ST acute coronary syndrome was 0.96; agreement on type of shock was 0.90. Among the population, 12 patients had an inconclusive POCUS exam, and 16 patients had a failed diagnosis. The use of POCUS in the emergency department shows almost perfect agreement when compared with the final diagnosis in individuals experiencing acutely decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this tool on mortality and prognosis when there are diagnostic errors.
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.