ArticleJournal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine2025
Reliability of Physician Estimation of Pelvic Free Fluid Volume on the Pediatric Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma.
Article in Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 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.
- Defining minimum image quality criteria for common diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound images: A position statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.Journal of hospital medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the reliability of physician gestalt estimation of pelvic free fluid volume on pediatric Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST). To determine a reliable cut-off volume and characteristics associated with small pelvic free fluid.
methodsOur study assessed the ability of 2 ultrasound-trained pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians and 2 pediatric radiologists to characterize pelvic free fluid in a retrospective convenience sample of archived FAST from a Level 1 pediatric trauma center, April 2018-June 2020. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were measured to determine the most reliable volume cut-off. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests determined characteristics associated with physiologic fluid and fluid volume.
resultsEighty-one (10.2%) of 797 FAST had pelvic fluid and met inclusion criteria. Volume estimates using none/trace/small versus moderate/large classifications were moderately reliable by the PEM physicians (κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.63-0.66]; raw agreement = 92%) and radiologists (κ = 0.48 [95% CI, 0.47-0.49]; raw agreement = 91%). This volume cut-off demonstrated higher reliability for both groups and greater agreement for PEM physicians than none/trace versus small/moderate/large. Girls (P = .005), isoechoic (P = .045), and location posterior to bladder (P < .001) were associated with physiologic fluid and hyperechoic (P = .019) with non-physiologic fluid. Hyperechoic (P < .001), anterior (P < .001), lateral (P = .04), or "other" location (P < .001) relative to the bladder were associated with moderate/large volume.
conclusionsUltrasound-trained PEM physicians and pediatric radiologists can reliably use gestalt estimation to distinguish moderate or large fluid from smaller pelvic fluid volumes on pediatric FAST.
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.