ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Validation of the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNontraumatic undifferentiated shock is difficult to manage in the emergency department due to unclear causes, lack of history, and rapid patient deterioration. Timely and appropriate resuscitation is crucial, but both inadequate and excessive resuscitation increase mortality risks. Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) offers a timely and noninvasive cardiac assessment. The echoSHOCK protocol is derived from FoCUS and improves the ability to identify the etiology of shock in patients at the emergency department. This study's primary objective was to validate the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department. This study's secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of different etiologies of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.
methodsAdult patients presenting to the emergency department in shock were included in the study after informed consent was obtained. The shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure of <90 mmHg or a mean arterial pressure of <65 mmHg with signs of poor tissue perfusion. Each patient underwent a detailed history, physical examination, and standard investigations. Clinicians reported a presumed etiology and management plan with a confidence level (0-10). The echoSHOCK protocol was then executed and its results were recorded with the respective confidence levels. The protocol used a phased array probe in B-mode solely and assessed left ventricle function, compressive pericardial effusion, right ventricular dilatation, interventricular septum flattening, and indicators of hypovolemia. The time taken to perform the protocol and the difficulty level were noted. An expert panel followed the patient till hospital discharge and provided the final diagnosis and intervention.
resultsThe study enrolled 223 patients with a mean age of 49.12 years. The echoSHOCK protocol showed a 94.2% agreement with expert panel diagnoses on the cause of shock and proposed interventions, with a statistically significant near-perfect agreement (Cohen's Kappa -0.896,
conclusionThe echoSHOCK protocol rapidly identifies shock etiology in patients at the emergency department. This aids in rapid 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.