Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40269937›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-organ point-of-care ultrasound for pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rafael Hortêncio Melo, Luciana Gioli-Pereira, Igor Dovorake Lourenço, Rogério Da Hora Passos, Adriana Tumba Bernardo, Giovanni Volpicelli

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Rafael Hortêncio MeloDepartment of Critical Care, Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina Dr.Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. rafaelmeloufc@yahoo.com.br.
Luciana Gioli-PereiraDepartment of Critical Care, Hospital Municipal Vila Santa Catarina Dr.Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Igor Dovorake LourençoDepartment of Critical Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rogério Da Hora PassosDepartment of Critical Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Adriana Tumba BernardoComplexo Hospitalar de Doenças Cardiopulmonares Cardeal Dom Alexandre Do Nascimento, 47QM+FCJ, Av. Pedro de Castro Van-Dúnem Loy, Luanda, Angola.
Giovanni VolpicelliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Science, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical presentation of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) can range from mild symptoms to severe shock, circulatory arrest and even death, thereby presenting with a significant high mortality when undiagnosed. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold-standard imaging modality for diagnosing PE, however, it has several practical limitations and is not widely available in low-income country settings. In this context, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a valuable bedside, non-invasive diagnostic tool. This meta-analysis assesses the accuracy of multi-organ POCUS for diagnosing PE in critical care settings. STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases for studies comparing multi-organ POCUS with CTPA or ventilation-perfusion scans for PE diagnosis in critical care departments. Two reviewers independently completed search, data abstraction and conducted quality assessment with QUADAS-2 tool. Heterogeneity was examined with I

resultsFour studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 594 patients. The mean age of participants ranged from 55.2 to 71 years. Prevalence of PE ranged from 28 to 66.2%. CTPA was the primary reference standard used in most studies. Multi-organ POCUS for PE diagnosis demonstrated a pooled DOR of 25.3 (95% CI 4.43-82.9) with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94; I

conclusionsMulti-organ POCUS has high diagnostic accuracy for PE diagnosis in critically ill patients. Further research is needed to validated these findings across different patient populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024614328.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsPulmonary EmbolismCritical IllnessHumansROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyDiagnostic accuracyPoint-of-care ultrasoundPulmonary embolism

Identifiers

PMID40269937
PMCPMC12020239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.