ArticleBMJ open2025
Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in obstetrics: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Two-step postoperative ultrasound for early detection of ureteral obstruction after benign hysterectomy.BMC women's health · 2026Article
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
introductionFacing the profound health impacts and economic challenges posed by the high maternal mortality ratio worldwide, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has shown its potential to enhance diagnostic efficiency, reduce healthcare costs and improve health outcomes. However, concerns regarding the explicit and implicit costs as well as actual clinical outcomes of POCUS also exist. This systematic review protocol aims to synthesise existing evidence regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of POCUS in obstetric care to provide a clearer understanding of its economic and clinical impact, ultimately guaranteeing global maternal and neonatal health and supporting the vision of the 2030 sustainable development goals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review has been registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024572715) and follows the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted across eight international and Chinese databases, as well as five specialised health economics retrieval databases. Eligible studies include formal economic evaluations and cost-related analyses of POCUS in obstetrics, selected using the 'Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study Design ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this systematic review will exclusively use published and publicly available data, ethical approval is not required. The findings from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024572715.
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.