ArticleBMC primary care2026
Frequency of clinical conditions suitable for point-of-care ultrasound and comparison of patient management plans among ultrasound users and non-users in Danish general practice.
Article in BMC primary care, 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.
- Implementing point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) in UK primary care: current and future perspectives.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe prevalence of clinical conditions where point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can be useful in general practice and the impact of POCUS on patient management is not well studied.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of 29 pre-specified clinical conditions that could be explored further using POCUS and compare the management of these conditions in a group of POCUS-users and non-users.
methodsIn a prospective registration study, 91 office-based general practitioners (GPs) (31 POCUS-users and 60 non-users), registered the total number of clinical patient encounters, the number of encounters with at least one of 29 clinical conditions suited for POCUS, and the management plan following these 29 clinical conditions during a one-month period.
resultsThe median registration period was 18 [IQR = 16–20] days. A total of 2430 registrations were made in 26,839 consultations corresponding to an incidence of the 29 clinical conditions of 9.1%. The most common conditions were pneumonia (11.1%), shoulder pain (10.8%), joint swelling (9.5%) and residual urine (7.5%). POCUS-users referred significantly fewer patients to specialists (9.3% vs. 17.4%; p < 0.001) and imaging (7.4% vs. 11.9%; p < 0.001) than non-users. POCUS-users finished treatment and did follow-up for more patients compared to non-users (59.2% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.001).
conclusionClinical conditions that can be further explored using POCUS are commonly encountered in general practice. Use of POCUS seems to have a significant impact on patient care, as POCUS-users referred fewer patients and concluded treatment more often than non-users.
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.