SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2026
Systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care gastric ultrasound by emergency physicians.
Synthesis in Internal and 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric ultrasound (GUS) has been used by anesthesiologists, critical care physicians, and radiologists for various clinical applications. Emergency physicians have begun to adopt this technique to the emergency setting. This study aims to determine the diagnostic test characteristics of GUS for prandial status by emergency physicians. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guideline, we conducted a systematic review of diagnostic test characteristics of emergency physician-performed GUS for prandial status. We identified nine studies (n = 659) of emergency physician-performed GUS. Four studies evaluated adults (n = 173) and five studies evaluated pediatric patients (n = 486). Based on QUADAS-2 definitions, studies were highly applicable. However, studies were of low to very low quality and at a high risk of bias. In adults, GUS was 86-100% sensitive and 70-92% specific for prandial status, with 100% feasibility. In pediatric patients, GUS was 82-84% sensitive and 22-74% specific for prandial status, with 85-100% feasibility. In most cases, GUS was performed in less than 5 min. In the studies identified by this systematic review, point-of-care GUS by emergency physicians was highly feasible across adult and pediatric populations. This imaging modality has fair to excellent test characteristics for assessing prandial status in adults. Test characteristics in pediatric patients ranged from very poor to good. Accordingly, GUS is a potentially helpful adjunct for assessing gastric content and volume (i.e., full vs. empty stomach) that would benefit from further prospective investigation. Nevertheless, caution should be adopted prior to incorporating GUS into clinical decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42429904What 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.