Trial reportInternal and emergency medicine2026
Comparing the effectiveness of point-of-care ultrasound and conventional triage in patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal pain.
Trial report in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ABCDEFG point-of-care ultrasound protocol for acute non-traumatic abdominal pain: a prospective observational study.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Observational
- Association Between Early Point-of-Care Ultrasound and Emergency Department Outcomes in Admitted Patients with Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain: A Propensity Score-Weighted Cohort Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abdominal pain constitutes approximately 10% of all emergency department (ED) presentations, representing a frequent and diagnostically complex complaint. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an essential tool in the ED, supporting resuscitation, interventional procedures, diagnosis, and follow-up. This prospective, randomized-controlled study aimed to assess the impact of POCUS-integrated triage compared to conventional triage (without ultrasound) on diagnostic accuracy, treatment initiation, and ED management in patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. A total of 262 adult patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio using computer-assisted methods, with 127 allocated to conventional triage and 135 to POCUS triage. The researcher did not intervene in clinical decisions. Primary outcomes included additional imaging requests, time to initial analgesia, consultation requests, ED length of stay, and overall outcome, while the secondary outcome was the effect on triage categorization. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21.0. The mean age of participants was 30 years, with 55.7% being female. The POCUS triage group required significantly fewer additional imaging studies (p < 0.001) and had shorter times to analgesia administration, consultation, and ED discharge (all p < 0.001). Moreover, POCUS triage significantly altered patient categorization compared to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) system (p < 0.001). When compared against final imaging reports, POCUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 55%, positive predictive value of 81.6%, and negative predictive value of 64.7%. In conclusion, POCUS triage enhances clinical efficiency by reducing imaging needs and expediting key interventions, offering significant advantages for emergency department workflow and patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40954383What 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.