Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39630617›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine2025

Contribution of point-of-care ultrasound in the prehospital management of patients with non-trauma acute dyspnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Omide Taheri, Julie Samain, Frédéric Mauny, Marc Puyraveau, Thibaut Desmettre, Tania Marx

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Medicalized Prehospital Setting on Diagnostic Workup: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Omide TaheriEmergency Department, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.
Julie SamainEmergency Department, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.
Frédéric MaunyLaboratory Chrono-environnement, UMR 6249 Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Besançon, France.
Marc PuyraveauLaboratory Chrono-environnement, UMR 6249 Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Besançon, France.
Thibaut DesmettreEmergency Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Centre Médical Universitaire, Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland.
Tania MarxEmergency Department, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute dyspnea is a common symptom whose management is challenging in prehospital settings. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly accessible because of device miniaturization. To assess the contribution of POCUS in the prehospital management of patients with acute nontraumatic dyspnea, we performed a systematic review on nontrauma patients of any age managed in the prehospital setting for acute dyspnea and receiving a POCUS examination. We searched seven databases and gray literature for English-language studies published from January 1995 to November 2023. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was the assessment of the contribution of POCUS to feasibility, diagnostic, therapeutic, prognosis, patient referral, and transport vector modification. Twenty-three studies were included. The risk of bias assessment identified 3 intermediate-risk, 18 serious-risk, and 2 critical-risk studies. Three studies reported moderate to excellent feasibility for lung POCUS, and three studies reported poor to mediocre feasibility for cardiac POCUS. The median duration of the POCUS examination was less than 5 minutes (six studies). POCUS improved diagnostic identification (seven studies). The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS was excellent for pneumothorax (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 100%, two studies), very good for acute heart failure (sensitivity = 71-100%, specificity = 72-95%, eight studies), good for pneumonia (sensitivity = 88%, specificity = 59%, one study), and moderate for pleural effusion (sensitivity = 26-53%, specificity = 83-92%, two studies). Treatment was modified in 11 to 54% of the patients (seven studies). POCUS had no significant effect on patient prognosis (two studies). POCUS contributed to patient referrals and transport vectors in 51% (four studies) and 25% (three studies) of patients, respectively. The evidence supports the use of POCUS for managing acute nontraumatic dyspnea in the prehospital setting in terms of feasibility, overall diagnostic contribution, and, particularly, lung ultrasound for acute heart failure diagnosis. Moreover, POCUS seems to have a therapeutic contribution. There is not enough evidence supporting the use of POCUS for pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma exacerbation diagnosis, nor does it support prognostic, patient referral, and transport vector contribution. A high level of evidence is lacking and needed.

Indexed as

DyspneaEmergency Medical ServicesPoint-of-Care SystemsAcute DiseaseHumansPneumothoraxUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID39630617
PMCPMC11855997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.