ArticleCureus2026
Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in Shock Diagnosis: Perceptions, Usage, and Barriers Among Emergency Physicians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an important bedside tool for the rapid assessment of patients presenting with shock. However, data on its utilization and barriers among emergency physicians in Saudi Arabia remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of POCUS use, physicians' perceptions, and barriers to its implementation in shock diagnosis among emergency physicians in Riyadh. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among emergency medicine consultants, specialists, and senior residents practicing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Participants were recruited between October 2025 and March 2026 using convenience and snowball sampling. The questionnaire assessed demographics, POCUS utilization, perceptions, benefits, barriers, and associated factors. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 18 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Results A total of 152 emergency physicians were included in the analysis. Frequent POCUS use (daily or 3-5 times/week) was reported by 96 (63.2%) participants. The Rapid Ultrasound in SHock (RUSH) protocol was the most commonly used shock assessment protocol, reported by 137 (90.1%) participants. Most participants agreed that POCUS improves diagnostic accuracy (138 (90.8%)), reduces clinical decision-making time (132 (86.8%)), and should be a mandatory skill in emergency medicine training (142 (93.4%)). Faster diagnosis was identified as the most important benefit by 141 (92.8%) participants. The most commonly reported barriers were time constraints (93 (61.2%)), limited access to ultrasound machines (82 (54.0%)), and lack of formal training (78 (51.3%)). Frequent POCUS use was significantly associated with hospital type (χ² = 22.279, p < 0.001) and employment in a tertiary care center (χ² = 4.701, p = 0.030). Higher perception scores were associated with frequent POCUS use (z = 4.460, p < 0.001) and years of emergency medicine experience (χ² = 6.948, p = 0.031). Conclusion POCUS is widely utilized and highly valued by emergency physicians in Riyadh for the assessment of shock. Despite favorable perceptions, barriers related to training, equipment availability, and time constraints remain common. Structured training and institutional support may facilitate broader POCUS integration into emergency practice.
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.