Observational studyJournal of ultrasound2026
The ABCDEFG point-of-care ultrasound protocol for acute non-traumatic abdominal pain: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of ultrasound, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Diagnostic performance of ultrasound for gastric volvulus in pediatric patients.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether the structured ABCDEFG point-of-care ultrasound protocol was associated with faster diagnostic resolution and improved emergency department efficiency in adults with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain.
methodsWe conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study in the emergency department of Baggiovara Hospital, Modena, Italy, between January and April 2025. Consecutive adults with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain were managed according to one of three provider-practice-based strategies: ABCDEFG POCUS, non-protocol POCUS, or standard care without bedside POCUS. The primary outcome was time to diagnosis.
resultsThe analytic cohort included 218 patients: 66 in the ABCDEFG POCUS group, 70 in the non-protocol POCUS group, and 82 in the standard care group. Median time to diagnosis was shorter with ABCDEFG POCUS than with non-protocol POCUS or standard care: 91 min (IQR 59-134) versus 162 min (85-209) and 162 min (82-270), respectively (p < 0.001). ED processing time was 122, 180, and 206 min, respectively, and ED length of stay was 245, 314, and 325 min, respectively. CT use was 15.9%, 24.6%, and 32.9%, and plain abdominal radiography use was 12.3%, 26.1%, and 39.0%. Pathology-specific diagnoses were documented in 98.5%, 73.9%, and 75.6% of patients, respectively. Thirty-day revisits and mortality did not differ significantly across groups.
conclusionIn this single-centre observational cohort, structured ABCDEFG POCUS was associated with faster diagnosis, shorter ED process times, lower selected imaging use, and fewer non-specific abdominal pain diagnoses. Multicentre studies are needed to assess reproducibility and patient-centred outcomes.
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.