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.
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.
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.
How Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affects the Diagnostic Process in General Practice. A Prospective Follow-up Study.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-of-care ultrasound in primary care - EFSUMB core curriculum and training recommendations - a position paper.Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980) · 2026Article
- Response to letter to the editor regarding 'does point-of care ultrasound examination by the general practitioner lead to inappropriate care? A follow up study' by Andersen et al.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor regarding 'does point-of-care ultrasound examination by the general practitioner lead to inappropriate care? A follow-up study'.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.