ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Mapping the Quality and Standardization of Methodological Reports in POCUS Research: A Scoping Review Protocol.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping the Quality and Standardization of Methodological Reports in POCUS Research: A Scoping Review Protocol.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has become an essential tool for diagnosis and monitoring across diverse clinical settings, enabling rapid and safe decision-making. Despite its widespread use, considerable heterogeneity persists in how studies report methodological aspects such as protocol descriptions, operator qualifications, and equipment characteristics. This lack of standardization limits comparability between studies, compromises reproducibility, and hinders the integration of POCUS into clinical guidelines and training curricula.
objectiveTo map and critically analyze the methodological aspects of studies using POCUS, with a focus on standardization, quality, and reproducibility of reported procedures.
methodsThis scoping review will follow the JBI guidelines and be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, LILACS, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, without restrictions on language or publication period. We will include original studies applying POCUS in humans, regardless of clinical context. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Data will be extracted using a standardized form adapted from JBI, capturing information on study design, population characteristics, ultrasound protocols, operator qualifications, and reported outcomes. Results will be synthesized descriptively and organized according to the I-AIM framework (Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical Decision-Making), supplemented with tables, conceptual diagrams, and visual representations. DISCUSSION: Given the variability in POCUS literature, this scoping review will identify patterns, inconsistencies, and gaps in methodological reporting. Although international frameworks, such as I-AIM provide guidance, adherence remains inconsistent, underscoring the need for more uniform standards. Findings from this review are expected to inform reporting practices, enhance methodological quality, and support the safe and effective incorporation of POCUS into clinical practice.
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.