ArticleThe European journal of general practice2026
Evaluation of Dutch General Practitioners ultrasound referrals and opportunities for point-of-care ultrasound: A retrospective analysis.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) frequently refer patients for abdominal ultrasound. Depending on the clinical context, a 'triage ultrasound' can assess multiple potential causes of abdominal symptoms, while a 'targeted ultrasound' (point-of-care ultrasound, POCUS) focuses on specific indications (e.g. cholelithiasis).
objectiveTo assess whether medical questions posed by GPs in abdominal ultrasound referral letters are adequate for radiologists to perform their examination, and to identify indications for POCUS by GPs based on exclusion rates and alternative findings in radiological reports.
methodsRetrospective study analysing GP referral letters with corresponding radiology reports referred for abdominal ultrasound. Key variables: GP's medical question, indication type and the radiologist's final interpretation, following established diagnostic guidelines.
resultsA total of 1,196 referral letters with corresponding reports were reviewed. Of these, 143 (12%) were excluded, primarily due to missing clinical information from the GP (102; 8.5%). The final sample comprised 1053 referral letters with reports (mean age 59.2 years; 60% female). Sixteen percent of referral letters lacked a medical question, and 33% included exclusively guideline-based indications. The most common guideline-based indications were urolithiasis (43%) and cholelithiasis (39%). For guideline-based requests, radiologists excluded the indicated condition in 75% of cases, and an alternative diagnosis was identified in fewer than 10%.
conclusionGPs frequently provide insufficient clinically relevant information in abdominal ultrasound referral letters. Simple cases with well-defined clinical queries like cholelithiasis, urolithiasis, hydronephrosis and abdominal aortic aneurysm seem suitable for POCUS evaluation, as these are often excluded conditions for which the risk of overlooking serious diagnoses is low.
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.