ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Utilization of point-of-care ultrasound and associated factors among emergency physicians in Henan Province, China: a multicenter cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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.
- Impact of Nurse-Performed Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) in Adult Intensive Care: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Real-world evidence on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) utilization and its correlates among emergency physicians remains limited in China. This study assessed POCUS use, practice patterns, training and perceived competence in Henan Province and examined physician- and hospital-level factors associated with POCUS utilization. Methods: A multicenter cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in Henan Province from 1 October to 15 November 2025 among emergency physicians with at least 3 years of ED experience from a targeted network of 278 public secondary and tertiary general hospitals. We compared characteristics between POCUS users and non-users and used logistic regression to identify factors associated with POCUS use, with sensitivity analyses further adjusting for hospital bed size and annual emergency department volume. Results: Of 1,020 physicians who accessed the survey, 2 did not provide informed consent, leaving 1,018 respondents for analysis. Overall, 569 physicians (55.9%) reported any current POCUS use and 449 (44.1%) reported no POCUS use. Among non-users, the leading barriers were lack of an ultrasound machine (300, 66.8%) and lack of POCUS skills (160, 35.6%). Among respondents reporting POCUS use, the most common applications were basic procedural guidance (453, 79.6%) and FAST or extended FAST (423, 74.4%). Self-rated competence was modest, with 260 (45.7%) rating skills as fair and 201 (35.4%) as poor or very poor. Use during cardiac arrest was uncommon: 84 (14.8%) never used POCUS and 136 (23.9%) used it often or always. In the primary multivariable model, educational level (adjusted OR 2.06 per one-category increase, 95% CI 1.52-2.79), tertiary hospital status (adjusted OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.20), and teaching hospital status (adjusted OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.54-2.69) were associated with POCUS use. In sensitivity analyses, hospital bed size and emergency department volume were strongly associated with POCUS use, and tertiary hospital status was no longer statistically significant. Conclusion: POCUS was commonly reported among emergency physicians in Henan Province, but adoption was constrained by equipment and training gaps, with particularly low use during cardiac arrest. Institutional capacity appears to be an important correlate of POCUS uptake, supporting combined strategies of equipment provision and scalable competency-based training.
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.