ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Defining the scope of point-of-care ultrasound in internal medicine: a consensus statement by the point-of-care special interest group of the Internal Medicine Society of Australia and New Zealand.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolving practice of general internal medicine in the current medical landscape.Internal medicine journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) complements physical examination to advance diagnosis and treatment in a range of clinical scenarios. However, the scope for adult internal medicine physicians is not defined in Australia and New Zealand.
aimTo outline the clinical scope and core competencies of POCUS for internal medicine physicians in Australia and New Zealand using a consensus process.
methodsA steering committee and expert panel utilised the Delphi method, comprising rounds of questionnaires and anonymous feedback, to define scope by determining (i) clinical scenarios in which POCUS provides benefit and (ii) core competencies in scanning. An 80% agreement cut-off was used in each round for both inclusion and exclusion of items, and items could be added depending on feedback. Synthesis of qualitative feedback was included.
resultsThe expert panel endorsed the use of POCUS in eight clinical scenarios: assessment of fluid status, undifferentiated shock or hypotension, dyspnoea/respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, suspected venous thromboembolism, synovitis/joint effusion and for guiding invasive procedures and diuretic therapy in heart failure. Core competencies based on identification of organ system pathology were endorsed, incorporating abnormalities of the heart, lung, inferior vena cava, abdomen, peripheral veins, soft tissue collection and joint effusion. The consensus intended not to mandate POCUS use nor limit the scope for physicians with advanced training, but offer a structured schema.
conclusionWe successfully established a consensus on the POCUS scope for internal medicine in our region. This provides a foundation to develop formal training and credentialing.
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.