ArticleCHEST pulmonary2024
Perception, Challenges, and Barriers of Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound Among Respiratory Therapist in the United States.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Updates in the management of intradialytic hypotension: Emerging strategies and innovations.World journal of nephrology · 2025Review
- Advanced Practice Respiratory Therapy in the State of California: A Cross-Sectional Needs Assessment Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Point-of-care lung ultrasound (POCLUS) has gained significant interest within the respiratory therapy profession. Research Question: Does participating in an online on-demand POCLUS didactic course affect the willingness to use or promote POCLUS among respiratory therapists (RTs)? What are the critical barriers to the implementation of POCLUS? What are the perceptions of RTs about the use of POCLUS? Study Design and Methods: This study used a pre-educational vs posteducational interventional design and received approval from the institutional review board. Participants were recruited via social media channels. The inclusion criteria required participants to be licensed registered RTs actively engaged in bedside practice within the United States. After signing the informed consent form, participants completed an online survey, underwent the online course, and participated in a 2-week follow-up survey. Results: A total of 70 participants with a mean ± SD age of 38.8 ± 9.0 years participated in the study. Most participants were female (n = 50 [71.4%]) and had been practicing as RTs for > 1 year (n = 65 [92.9%]). Most participants (87.1% [n = 61]) had observed POCLUS being performed on a patient and were curious to use it after the course; 97.1% (n = 68) believed that POCLUS should be incorporated into the clinical assessment. Additionally, 91.4% (n = 64) of the participants discussed the POCLUS elements with fellow RTs and 90% (n = 63) reported an increased willingness to use this skill. The top barriers to performing POCLUS were the lack of a formal curriculum and limited device availability. Interestingly, financial incentives did not emerge as a significant barrier. Interpretation: Our findings show that RTs display strong willingness and interest in integrating POCLUS into their daily clinical assessments. The inclusion of POCLUS in the curriculum was found to be the primary barrier, whereas financial incentives were not reported as a significant barrier.
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.