ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2026
Point-of-care ultrasound for evaluating acute dyspnoea in emergency departments: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of critical care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in adult non-traumatic emergency medicine: an umbrella review.BMC medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute dyspnoea is a common yet diagnostically complex presentation in emergency departments (EDs), representing approximately 2.4% of all visits. Traditional diagnostic tools-clinical assessment, chest radiography, and laboratory tests-may lack the precision required for timely and accurate diagnosis. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) offers real-time, bedside imaging and has emerged as a promising tool to address these limitations.
aimTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness of POCUS
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, EBSCO Host, MAG Online Library, Elsevier, and ProQuest without date restrictions. Studies were included if they involved adult ED patients undergoing POCUS for dyspnoea evaluation. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42025649145), eligible studies were assessed using QUADAS-2, and diagnostic performance was analysed using MetaDisc software. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated.
resultsOut of 581 identified records, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 19 included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of POCUS was 85.6% (95%CI: 84.0%-87.2%) and specificity was 80.8% (95%CI: 79.0%-82.5%). The DOR was 68.09 (95%CI: 27.07-171.28), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (95%CI: 0.085-0.231), indicating strong potential to rule out serious pathology. Substantial heterogeneity was noted, mainly due to operator variability, study design, and diagnostic protocols.
conclusionPOCUS offers accurate, rapid, and cost-effective evaluation of acute dyspnoea in EDs. Standardised training and further research on outcomes, protocols, and underrepresented populations are essential for consistent, effective implementation.
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.