ReviewJournal of hospital medicine2026
Defining minimum image quality criteria for common diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound images: A position statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Review in Journal of hospital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking POCUS Competency in Residency: Beyond the Numbers.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026Article
- Stroke-point-of-care ultrasound: a new holistic approach to bedside evaluation in stroke patients using ultrasound.European stroke journal · 2026Review
- Defining minimum image quality criteria for common diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound images: A position statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.Journal of hospital medicine · 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
34 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use continues to expand across multiple clinical subspecialties, and the need for standardization of training and quality assurance has become increasingly important. Despite the need for training, there are currently no widely accepted multispecialty criteria to define an acceptable quality POCUS image for common POCUS applications used by clinicians. Without such criteria, discrepancies in rating POCUS image quality occur, leading to inconsistencies in training and quality assurance, which can ultimately compromise patient care and safety.
methodsTo address this gap, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Point-of-care Ultrasound Task Force convened an expert panel of 32 national POCUS experts trained in hospital medicine (n = 24), critical care (n = 4), emergency medicine (n = 3), radiology (n = 2), and cardiology (n = 1) and employed a modified-Delphi approach to develop minimum image quality criteria for five common POCUS applications: heart, lungs, abdomen, lower extremity veins, and skin/soft tissues.
resultsAfter three rounds of voting and group discussion, the panel achieved consensus on a comprehensive list of 215 items to define standard image quality criteria in five different body systems.
conclusionsThese POCUS image quality criteria offer a structured, consensus-based framework for evaluating POCUS images and establish a minimum standard for defining an acceptable quality image. Use of these criteria can improve inter-rater reliability and advance standardization of POCUS imaging, which affects training, quality assurance, and credentialing/privileging practices.
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.