ArticleThe ultrasound journal2025
Feasibility of point-of-care ultrasound during the emergency department triage: a prospective cohort study.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of adding point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) during the Emergency Department (ED) triage process. This prospective study enrolled two cohorts of adult patients presenting to the ED for a selected group of acute symptoms, previously selected on the basis of the presumed utility of POCUS during triage evaluation. The ED triage process was performed as recommended by the hospital guidelines or by including a nurse-performed POCUS evaluation. Only urgent or less codes were considered eligible for the study. The timing of all evaluations was recorded along with the opinion of the nurses involved in the study on the impact of POCUS results on the triage process. After ED discharge, the most appropriate triage code was determined by independent review of the triage data.
resultsA total of 312 patients were enrolled, 101 of whom were evaluated with the hospital standard triage process. Nine nurses with expertise in both ED triage and POCUS were involved in the study. The majority of the enrolled patients were deferrable or minor urgency (about 60% in both groups). The median time needed for the triage evaluation was 180 seconds (range 540), 90 seconds longer in the POCUS group than in the standard triage group (p < 0.01). Net reclassification index of POCUS-implemented compared with standard triage protocol was 8% and 5% for urgent and less urgent cases.
conclusionsThis small single site study suggests that POCUS is feasible during the ED triage and it is potentially useful by triage nurses. However, future studies are needed to confirm POCUS potential usefulness for a more accurate triage process.
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.