ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Implementation strategies and economic considerations for point-of-care ultrasound in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly adopted as a diagnostic tool in low- and middle-income countries due to its accessibility and comparatively low costs. This review aims to synthesise successful implementation strategies for POCUS and evaluate existing literature on its associated cost implications. We conducted a scoping review following recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute's manual for evidence synthesis and the PRISMA-Scoping review guidelines. The search included five databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL) identifying original research published before 30th of April 2025 addressing POCUS implementation or economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the associated Expert Recommendation for Implementation Change (CFIR-ERIC) matching tool were applied to assess implementation strategies which improve implementation processes. Six studies focusing on implementation strategies were identified, five of which were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. An additional six economic evaluations were included, mainly from Africa and South Asia. Implementation studies were primarily small-scale, single-country interventions with infrequent use of needs assessments prior to implementation and limited long-term follow-up. Common barriers included limited infrastructure, equipment shortages and delays in delivering intervention services. The CFIR-ERIC tool identified supportive strategies such as thorough planning, close collaborations involving several stakeholders, expanded training efforts and infrastructure, and continuous re-evaluations of interventions. Economic evaluations were methodologically diverse, often indication-specific and focused on cost analysis. Evidence on POCUS implementation and economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries was diverse. Strategies such as thorough planning, close and equitable partnerships, and continuous re-evaluation and adaptation of interventions were identified as supportive of successful implementation. While potential cost savings to health systems have been reported, future efforts should prioritise comprehensive evaluations of POCUS implementation programmes that incorporate patient-centred economic evaluations assessments.
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.