SynthesisJournal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine2025
Sample Size of Trials Investigating the Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Strategies on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 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.
- A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound Evaluation of Fluid Tolerance for Acute Kidney Injury: USE-the-FORCE-for-AKI Trial.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly utilized for bedside diagnosis and management in diverse clinical contexts. However, the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of POCUS-guided strategies on clinical outcomes presents significant challenges. This study aims to explore the assumptions underlying sample size estimation in POCUS-guided trials and assess the adequacy of sample sizes in published trials through a systematic review. We performed a sample size analysis considering varying rates of POCUS-induced management changes and plausible effect sizes on binary and continuous patient-centered outcomes. Additionally, a systematic review of PubMed was conducted to identify RCTs comparing POCUS-guided management to usual care, extracting data on planned and actual sample sizes and justifications for sample size decisions. Sample size estimations revealed a substantial dependence on the proportion of participants experiencing management changes due to POCUS findings. For example, achieving adequate power in a trial with a moderate effect size requires over 1000 participants if POCUS alters management in 50% of cases. Our review included 25 RCTs, with a median sample size of 206 participants (interquartile range 122-250). Only 68% of trials reported sample size justifications, and 41% failed to meet planned recruitment targets, primarily due to recruitment challenges and other logistical barriers. Most trials investigating POCUS-guided strategies are underpowered, underscoring the need for realistic sample size estimations that consider the rate of POCUS-induced management changes and anticipated effect sizes. Future trials should incorporate pilot phases and innovative designs to optimize feasibility and power.
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.