SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2025
Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted point-of-care ultrasound for abdominal free fluid detection in FAST trauma assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying Gastrointestinal Pathologies Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiverticulitis is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis requiring imaging for confirmation. Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as a rapid and accessible modality for evaluating acute abdominal conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PoCUS in detecting acute diverticulitis. As a secondary objective, we evaluated its accuracy in diagnosing complicated diverticulitis.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA-DTA guidelines. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched through February 2025, and risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. The reference standard was computed tomography (CT) with or without intravenous contrast or comprehensive clinical follow-up. A bivariate random-effects model was used for pooled estimates.
resultsSix studies (n = 1,420) evaluating PoCUS performed by emergency physicians or other non-radiologist clinicians were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of PoCUS for acute diverticulitis were 94% (95% CI: 92–95%) and 86% (95% CI: 72–94%), respectively. Emergency physician-performed PoCUS showed improved specificity (91%, 95% CI: 88–94%) with similar sensitivity (94%, 95% CI: 91–95%). For complicated diverticulitis, PoCUS demonstrated high specificity (98%, 95% CI: 97–99%) but moderate sensitivity (58%, 95% CI: 46–69%).
conclusionPoCUS is a highly effective diagnostic tool for diverticulitis, offering high sensitivity and specificity. It serves as a practical first-line imaging modality and may reduce reliance on CT imaging. However, due to its moderate sensitivity for complications, confirmatory imaging such as CT is recommended when complications are suspected.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42025648563).
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.