ArticleThe ultrasound journal2026
Description of an independently developed quality assessment tool to meet emergency department credentialing and Emergency Ultrasound Fellowship Accreditation Council guidelines.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality assurance (QA) review is essential to any point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) program that credentials emergency clinicians or hosts an Emergency Ultrasound Fellowship Accreditation Council (EUFAC) accredited fellowship. Commercially designed QA solutions exist but may not be accessible to all programs due to budgetary or institution-specific administration constraints.
objectivesThe authors aimed to develop a robust, standalone, HIPAA-compliant POCUS QA database which satisfies both credentialing requirements and EUFAC review goals.
methodsAn indexed, searchable electronic QA database was developed using Google workspace. The database was inspected reviewer disagreement trends that led to feedback at the individual and departmental level and was used to satisfy QA review requirements for ultrasound fellows.
resultsSince deployment of the database in July 2021, 2742 studies have undergone QA review out of approximately 15,000 studies performed (18.3%). Reviewers disagreed with some portion of the interpretation in 848 (24.8%) exams, most commonly abdominal aortic aneurysm evaluation (n = 45 exams, 31.1%) and basic echocardiography (n = 1203 exams, 27.9%). Disagreement was least common for male genitourinary exams (n = 19 exams, 0%) and advanced echocardiograms (n=57, 15.8%), likely reflecting operator experience. For 209 (7.6%) studies, feedback to the clinicians was warranted and delivered via direct communication. This process has resulted in department-level education in consistently deficient areas.
conclusionWe present our lightweight, easily reproducible alternative to commercial POCUS QA solutions that has led to targeted feedback and department-level education while also satisfying accreditation requirements.
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.