ArticleFamily practice2025
Point-of-care ultrasound can make the difference in patients with heart failure at primary care.
Article in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary healthcare centers (PHC) play a pivotal role in the first-line management of patients with diabetes and hypertension, major risk factors for heart failure (HF) development. Point-of-care cardiac ultrasound (POCUS), integrated as an extension of the physical examination, holds significant potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and clinical management in this setting.
objectivesEvaluate the impact of POCUS on clinical decision-making in patients with HF and at risk of developing HF in PHC and compare POCUS findings with clinical assessment alone, conventional echocardiography, and electrocardiogram results.
methodsPatients with diabetes, hypertension, or HF symptoms at a PHC underwent POCUS by a trained family physician. The findings were compared with traditional clinical practice. Decisions regarding referral for an echocardiogram or hospital consultation were contrasted with those of two clinicians who do not use POCUS, and the investigator's echocardiographic results were compared with those from conventional echocardiography and electrocardiogram. Data were analyzed using SPSS.
resultsAmong 196 patients (66 ± 15 years; 53.6% female), 36.2% had HF symptoms, 89.2% hypertension, and 29.7% diabetes. Investigator requested less echocardiograms (44 vs. 145 and 125) and made less hospital referral (15 vs. 16 and 24). Using POCUS, congestive patients were less than expected (18 vs. 43 cases), and stage B HF patients were more than clinically (44.9% vs. 19.4%). POCUS identified more cases with left ventricular hypertrophy than electrocardiograms (58 vs. 10).
conclusionThese findings highlight the value of integrating POCUS into routine family physician consultations, particularly for the management of HF and effective risk stratification.
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.