ArticleCJEM2025
Rural Canadian emergency physician experiences using point-of-care ultrasound.
Article in CJEM, 2025. 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.
- An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Point of Care Ultrasound by Family Physicians in Rural British Columbia, Canada: Methodological Insights.The Australian journal of rural health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a rapidly evolving and clinically significant skill set that has potential for improving patient care for the approximately 7 million Canadians living in rural and under-resourced environments. A national appraisal of rural POCUS training and utilization is needed to understand barriers to funding and training for rural emergency physicians in Canada. The primary objective of this study was to determine the current level of training and types of POCUS utilization by rural emergency physicians in Canada. The secondary objective was to describe the barriers to POCUS use.
methodsAn online survey of POCUS education, training, and utilization was distributed, in English and French, to rural emergency physicians across Canada via the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Society of Rural Physicians of Canada and College of Family Physicians of Canada listservs.
resultsOne hundred and sixty-eight physicians completed the survey with a response rate of 10%. Most were family physicians registered with the College of Family Physicians of Canada (68%) and worked in rural communities with under 10,000 residents (64%). The majority of respondents (94%) used a POCUS device in their practice, with 40% always using POCUS and 84% having access to a high-quality device. POCUS was commonly used for abdominal aortic aneurysm, cardiac, and obstetrical exams. Key barriers to training were cost (62%), distance to the training center (48%), inability to take time off work (43%) and insufficient hospital administration support (21%). Eighty percent of respondents agreed that POCUS was valuable in rural and remote areas with limited access to diagnostic imaging and 78% agreed that institutions should fund POCUS training.
conclusionPOCUS is used daily for patient care in rural Canadian emergency departments. Despite widespread access to POCUS, rural emergency physicians face significant barriers in training and utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39776068What 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.