SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Prognostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in patients with pulseless electrical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Singapore Paediatric Life Support Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026Guideline
- Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracies of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein for Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical application of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Pre-hospital and emergency department point-of-care ultrasound in cardiovascular emergencies: a scoping review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis for pulseless electrical activity (PEA) is typically poor; however, patients with cardiac activity observed on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) tend to have better outcomes compared to those without. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the prognostic accuracy of cardiac activity detected by POCUS in predicting resuscitation outcomes in patients experiencing PEA.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) were calculated using the bivariate model.
resultsEighteen studies comprising 1202 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Cardiac activity observed on POCUS demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.67-0.95) and specificity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.51-0.75) for predicting return of spontaneous circulation, a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.94) and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.63-0.81) for survival to admission (SHA), and a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.58-0.91) and specificity of 0.58 (95% CI 0.47-0.68) for survival to discharge. The highest area under the SROC, 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), was observed for SHA.
conclusionsOur study suggests that POCUS may serve as a vital component of a multimodal approach for early termination of resuscitation.
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.