ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Critical Care Ultrasonography for Cardiogenic Shock: A Scoping Review.
Article in Critical care explorations, 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.
- The Role of PoCUS in the Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize the effectiveness of critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) in adult patients with cardiogenic shock vs. standard of care without CCUS on patient-relevant outcomes.
designWe performed a scoping review across MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, World Health Organization, International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and published and unpublished sources from inception until February 2024.
settingThe emergency department, ward, or ICU. PATIENTS: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing CCUS to non-CCUS care in adult patients with cardiogenic shock. We included any type of ultrasound measure for the intervention in adult patients (≥ 18 yr old).
interventionsCCUS. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe included two RCTs (n = 573 patients) and one observational study (n = 30 patients). RCT data suggested that CCUS, with transesophageal echocardiography in particular, in adult patients with cardiogenic shock may shorten time to resolution of hemodynamic instability at 72 hours (subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55) but failed to influence mortality (risk difference, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.05), time to resolution of hemodynamic instability within 6 days (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.98-1.46), ICU length of stay (LOS; p = 0.87), hospital LOS (p = 0.91), duration of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.73), or duration of renal replacement therapy (RRT; p = 0.68).
conclusionsIn adult patients with cardiogenic shock, CCUS does not impact mortality, time to resolution of hemodynamic instability within 6 days, ICU and hospital LOS, nor mechanical ventilation or RRT duration. Notably, CCUS may hasten resolution of hemodynamic instability at 72 hours, but such evidence is limited by imprecision and indirectness.
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.