ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Ultrasonography in disaster medicine: a narrative review.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
This narrative review aimed to critically appraise the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact, and operational feasibility of ultraportable point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) across the four domains of disaster medicine. A literature search was conducted following the SANRA and PRISMA-trAIce guidelines. Records were identified through an AI-assisted literature-discovery tool (the Undermind Deep-Search platform, interrogating the Semantic Scholar corpus) run on 15 June 2025, rather than through an independent structured multi-database search. Candidate references were screened manually against pre-specified eligibility criteria by a single reviewer, with the search parameters independently verified by the senior author. Of 71 records identified, 63 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies comprised 32 original studies, 10 systematic or scoping reviews, 20 narrative or operational papers, and one guideline. In CBRN scenarios, lung ultrasound demonstrated sensitivities of 90-97% for COVID-19 pneumonia versus 60-69% for chest radiography while minimizing healthcare worker exposure. For blast and ballistic injuries, FAST showed a pooled sensitivity of 92.1% (95% CI: 87.8-95.6) and specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.0-99.9) for intra-abdominal hemorrhage. In natural disasters, ultrasound altered management in up to 44% of patients. Post-disaster applications included vascular access, tube confirmation, and complication monitoring. Ultraportable POCUS demonstrates diagnostic utility and operational feasibility across multiple disaster domains. However, evidence quality varies significantly, and standardized protocols remain lacking. Prospective studies linking ultrasound deployment to improved patient outcomes are needed. KEY POINTS: Question When disasters disable conventional imaging, how does ultraportable point-of-care ultrasonography perform for diagnosis, triage, and procedural guidance across the four domains of disaster medicine? Findings Across 63 studies, FAST reached 92.1% pooled sensitivity for hemoperitoneum, lung ultrasound 90-97% versus 60-69% for radiography; management changed in up to 44%. Critical relevance statement This review critically appraises ultraportable ultrasound across all four disaster domains, showing that radiation-free bedside imaging accelerates triage, conserves scarce CT capacity, and extends radiological expertise through tele-guidance, while exposing an evidence base still lacking prospective outcome data.
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.