ReviewBiomedicines2025
Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use in Hemodynamic Assessment.
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of PoCUS in the Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-Guided Mini Fluid Challenge via Velocity-Time Integral to Assess Fluid Responsiveness in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Quasi-Experimental Feasibility Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Use of Natriuretic Peptides in Critically Ill Patients: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Approach of family physicians to the use of ultrasonography in Türki̇ye.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Precision medicine in sepsis: reappraising glucocorticoid therapy through the lens of molecular endotypes.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Integrated ultrasound haemodynamic profiling (VTI-VExUS) for risk stratification in acute heart failure.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Changes in internal jugular vein respiratory variation during tidal volume challenge predict volume responsiveness in lumbar surgery under protective ventilation: a prospective cohort study.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemodynamic assessment is critical in emergency and critical care for preventing, diagnosing, and managing shock states that significantly affect patient outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an invaluable, non-invasive, real-time, and reproducible tool for bedside decision-making. Advancements such as Doppler imaging, advanced critical care ultrasonography, and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) have expanded its utility, enabling rapid and repeatable evaluations, especially in complex mixed shock presentations. This review explores the role of POCUS in hemodynamic monitoring, emphasizing its ability to assess cardiac output, filling pressures, and vascular congestion, facilitating shock classification and guiding fluid management. We highlight an extensive array of POCUS techniques for evaluating right and left cardiac function and review existing literature on their advantages, limitations, and appropriate clinical applications. Beyond assessing volume status, this review discusses the role of POCUS in predicting fluid responsiveness and supporting more individualized, precise management strategies. Ultimately, while POCUS is a powerful tool for rapid, comprehensive hemodynamic assessment in acute settings, its limitations must be acknowledged and thoughtfully integrated into clinical decision-making.
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.