ArticleBMC primary care2024
Is it worth trying? A cross-sectional study on the implementation of point-of-care ultrasound in Hungarian primary care.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Digital Evolution of the Medical Black Bag: Environmental Scan With Trend Analysis and Horizon Scanning.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in French urgent primary care: a national survey of general practitioners in the SOS Médecins network.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Approach of family physicians to the use of ultrasonography in Türki̇ye.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Feasibility and diagnostic validity of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in Hungarian primary care: a multiregional pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available in Hungarian primary care practices are increasing due to government funding, their use in day-to-day patient care is limited and unregulated. Our study aimed to evaluate the attitudes and needs of general practitioners (GPs) and patients in Hungary regarding the introduction of bedside ultrasonography in primary care practices.
methodsAs a part of a cross-sectional study, an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to GPs and patients on a social media platform. Data collection was carried out from August 2023 to October 2023. Chi-square test was used to determine the associations between categorical variables.
resultsThe survey was completed by 415 GPs (mean age 53.8 ± 11.1 years, 54.9% female, mean 19.5 ± 11.9 years of practice) and 693 patients (mean age 45.5 ± 12.3 years, 95.2% female). There was a statistically significant increase in interest in PoCUS among young and middle-aged GPs (age 28-59; p = 0.02). In addition, this population of GPs was also more likely to undertake training in PoCUS than their older colleagues (p < 0.0001). An inverse relationship was found between the duration of practice and training willingness (p = 0.0011). Even with the government's financial support, only 8.2% of GPs currently use PoCUS in a daily basis, and 59.5% of GPs are unfamiliar with the indications and the ways of using it. Patients would even pay to have the examination done in a primary care setting, even though only 45.9% of patients would pay a GP who is not certified in PoCUS, but the willingness to pay increased to 99.4% for those with formal training (p = 0.024).
conclusionOur findings indicate a significant interest in adapting PoCUS in primary care from both GPs and patients. Based on the fact that a significant proportion of Hungarian GPs are unaware of PoCUS and its indications, it is particularly important to develop educational frameworks, and practical guidelines for the effective incorporation of PoCUS in Hungary.
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.