ReviewCureus2025
Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma (FAST) in Hemorrhage Stratification and Trauma Severity Classification.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading preventable cause of early death after trauma. The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examination is widely used to detect free intraperitoneal fluid, but its prognostic value for hemorrhage grading and trauma severity classification requires synthesis. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched through March 2025 for human studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic utility of FAST in blunt or penetrating trauma. Studies were selected based on the population (or patient/problem), intervention, comparison (or control), and outcome (PICO) framework, excluding case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, animal studies, and those without extractable outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, Version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Seven studies, including approximately 7,310 patients, met the inclusion criteria. FAST demonstrated high specificity up to 97% for detecting clinically significant hemoperitoneum. Positive findings were associated with increased transfusion requirements, greater need for surgery or embolization, higher intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, elevated injury severity, and higher short-term mortality. Semi-quantitative interpretations, such as the number and distribution of positive zones, enhanced hemorrhage stratification. Combining FAST with physiological parameters in validated trauma scoring systems improved the prediction of massive transfusion and operative urgency. Despite operator dependence and limited sensitivity for small or retroperitoneal bleeds, standardized protocols and serial assessments can strengthen its role in early trauma decision-making.
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.