ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2025
'Shades of grey': a focus group study on diagnostic uncertainty among general practitioners using point-of-care ultrasound.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has long been a diagnostic tool in family medicine, although most Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) who use POCUS, scans infrequently. The broad scope of family medicine, the relatively low prevalence of illnesses and infrequent use of POCUS imply that GPs may experience diagnostic uncertainty regularly.
aimTo explore how GPs perceived and managed diagnostic uncertainty when using POCUS. DESIGN AND
settingA qualitative focus group study among Norwegian GPs using POCUS.
methodsFour focus group discussions were conducted. Total number of participants were 21. The interview guide was piloted, the focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and Systematic Text Condensation, a thematic cross-case analysis, was used to analyse the data.
resultsDiagnostic uncertainty using POCUS was considered as aligning to the general clinical uncertainties in family medicine, but there were also POCUS-specific uncertainties in clinical decision-making. We generated six themes: emotional, cognitive, and ethical uncertainty using POCUS, communicating uncertainty to patients, interaction with specialists when using POCUS, and coping strategies of participants. POCUS results were the only results the participants sometimes withheld when communicating with other specialists. POCUS itself stimulated a renewed interest in family medicine. Scanning enough patients was the recommended coping strategy.
conclusionPOCUS-using GPs experienced diagnostic uncertainty when using POCUS that aligned with other diagnostic uncertainties they experienced in everyday practice. However, they did not treat the results like other findings, as the GPs at times withheld their POCUS findings when interacting with secondary care specialists. This requires further investigation.
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.