Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42377246›Full record

ArticleClinical practice and cases in emergency medicine2026

The Value of Point-of-care Ocular Ultrasound in Physician-in-triage Model: A Case Series.

Christopher Thom, Benton Spirek, Gitansh Bhargava, James Moak

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical practice and cases in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christopher ThomUniversity of Virginia Health System, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Benton SpirekUniversity of Virginia Health System, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Gitansh BhargavaUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Department of Emergency Medicine, Little Rock, Arkansas.
James MoakUniversity of Virginia Health System, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPhysician-in-triage (PIT) models have become increasingly common in emergency medicine. The goal is to facilitate rapid patient evaluation and improve key operational emergency department (ED) metrics. However, there is limited time for the PIT encounter, which often involves an abbreviated patient evaluation. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been shown to improve patient care and speed diagnosis in a variety of scenarios. Although physicians working within a PIT model must remain mindful of time constraints, POCUS can help identify time-sensitive diagnoses and guide appropriate initial testing during certain encounters. Ocular POCUS can be particularly impactful on timely diagnosis and appropriate deployment of ED resources. CASE SERIES: We present three cases of acute monocular vision loss wherein the PIT physician used ocular POCUS to arrive at the correct initial diagnosis. This led to the appropriate deployment of ED stroke and neurology resources in the case of acute central retinal artery occlusion, while avoiding this unnecessary use of these resources in two cases where it was not indicated.

conclusionUse of point-of-care ultrasound in PIT models should be thoughtfully employed in cases where immediate diagnosis is required, as well as when POCUS results will likely alter subsequent diagnostic testing pathways. Ocular POCUS in PIT can rapidly differentiate neurologic causes of monocular vision loss from primary ophthalmic conditions.

Identifiers

PMID42377246
PMCPMC13135423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.