ArticleCureus2024
Implementation of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) in Geisinger Health System.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an imaging modality with many inherent benefits, such as increased patient satisfaction, cost savings, and elimination of delays in diagnosis. The popularity of this bedside imaging technique has increased in recent years, and its scope of use for diagnostics and procedures has expanded in many specialties. Research question Can increased implementation of PoCUS within the Geisinger Health System (GHS) reduce the need for other more expensive, time-consuming, and potentially harmful imaging techniques? Methods Investigations were carried out on the uses of PoCUS established in the literature as a bedside diagnostic tool for specific pathologies such as pneumonia, nephrolithiasis, and various fractures. The SlicerDicer tool from Epic was then used to quantify diagnostic tests that could be replaced with PoCUS. Data collection focused on the number of other imaging modalities (CT, MRI, X-ray) that could be substituted with PoCUS. Data regarding the existing use of PoCUS within GHS could not be collected due to the limitations of SlicerDicer. Results Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, 121,057 imaging studies, including 38,838 CT scans, were recorded in SlicerDicer, where PoCUS could be implemented as an alternative diagnostic tool for specific pathologies. The largest portion of PoCUS-replaceable scans was chest X-ray at 61,684, followed by CT of the abdomen and pelvis at 36,204 scans in the five-year study period. Conclusions Our review of SlicerDicer data from GHS revealed substantial numbers of imaging scans that could be substituted with PoCUS. Expanding the use of PoCUS within GHS would be advantageous to both patients and providers, and we recommend that providers take advantage of opportunities to incorporate PoCUS into their clinical practice.
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.