Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40207775›Full record

Observational studyScandinavian journal of primary health care2025

Does point-of-care ultrasound examination by the general practitioner lead to inappropriate care? A follow-up study.

Camilla Aakjær Andersen, John Brandt Brodersen, Jan Mainz, Janus Laust Thomsen, Ole Graumann, Thomas Løkkegaard, Martin Bach Jensen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03375333 (How Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affects the Diagnostic Process in General Practice. A Prospective Follow-up Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT03375333 completednot on this map

How Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affects the Diagnostic Process in General Practice. A Prospective Follow-up Study.

TypeobservationalSponsorAalborg UniversityRan2018 to 2019Enrolled579ConditionsUltrasound, Diagnostics, General Practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Camilla Aakjær AndersenCenter for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5933-748X
John Brandt BrodersenCentre of General Practice, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen.ORCID 0000-0001-9369-3376
Jan MainzDanish Center for Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0242-9233
Janus Laust ThomsenCenter for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0745-6815
Ole GraumannDepartment of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9663-8361
Thomas LøkkegaardCenter for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6284-2321
Martin Bach JensenCenter for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2162-7390

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in general practice increases, but little is known about potential unintended findings and harms to patients. Information regarding such unwanted effects may be obtained by evaluating the medical records of patients who have been scanned by their general practitioner.

objectiveTo identify and characterize re-consultations related to POCUS use in general practice, potential misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings, and to compare potentially troublesome cases to GPs' scanning competence and type of ultrasound device. DESIGN AND

settingProfessors in general practice with extensive experience in both research and quality assurance in general practice did a blinded review of prospectively collected routine electronic medical record data combined with cross-sectional data collected in relation to POCUS examinations. SUBJECTS: Twenty general practitioners collected data on 564 patients examined with POCUS in primary care.

main outcome measuresInternational standards for the classification of adverse events and incidental findings were used. First, research assistants identified all re-consultations described in the medical records that were related to the primary health complaint at the index consultation. Second, these re-consultations were classified by the medical experts in terms of seriousness and relation to the POCUS examination performed at the index consultation. In addition, the experts identified possible misdiagnosis, possible overdiagnosis, and incidental findings. Finally, identified cases were discussed in terms of appropriateness and described narratively.

resultsMedical records of 564 patients were reviewed. A low risk of possible misdiagnosis (5.3%), potential overdiagnosis (0.7%), and incidental findings (0.7%) were found. Eleven POCUS-related re-consultations were identified and described.

conclusionPOCUS scanning performed by general practitioners was generally safe, but it can result in unnecessary examinations and potential harm in a few cases. Certain areas, e.g. pelvic scans that included the ovaries, may especially be prone to misdiagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03375333.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersPoint-of-Care SystemsUnnecessary ProceduresAdultAgedClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidental FindingsMaleMiddle AgedOverdiagnosisadverse effectsgeneral practiceprimary carequality assuranceUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID40207775
PMCPMC12377149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.