Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2026
Documentation of Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST) Is Frequently Incomplete: A Prospective Observational Study.
Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) is a point-of-care ultrasound protocol that identifies life-threatening thoracoabdominal trauma. Clinical documentation of the eFAST is essential to convey medical decisions, but the extent of documentation in clinical practice is unknown. This study describes the proportion of eFAST exams that are documented in the medical record, the type of documentation (free text vs procedure note), and clinical factors associated with documentation.
methodsThis prospective, single-center study evaluated the documentation of consecutive eFAST exams performed at a single Level I trauma center between November 2021-November 2022. Research coordinators observed all trauma activations and noted whether any portion of an eFAST was performed. Our primary outcome was the presence of any documentation in the chart. We analyzed secondary outcomes using a multivariable logistic regression model and included the type of documentation (any documentation vs billable procedure note) as well as patient- (body mass index, age, sex, shock index > 1, and presence of pathology on reference test) and operator-level (involvement of ultrasound faculty) factors associated with each type of documentation.
resultsA total of 335 patients had a witnessed eFAST performed during the study period. No documentation was observed in 114/335 (34%) patients compared to any documentation in 221/335 (66%). Most documentation was free text only in 134/335 (40%) patients, with only 87/335 (25.9%) of patients with billable documentation. Regression analysis found that shock index > 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.37; 95% CI, 2.55-31.29), presence of pathology on eFAST (aOR 2.07; 95% CI, 1.24-3.51), and involvement of ultrasound section faculty (aOR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.05-3.66) were significantly associated with an increase in any documentation.
conclusionApproximately one-third of performed trauma eFAST exams are undocumented, and only one-quarter of exams have structured documentation that enables billing. Further work is needed to understand factors that can lead to improved documentation quality to communicate results, justify medical decision-making, and augment reimbursement.
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.