↓ Skip to main content

The role of point of care ultrasound in prehospital critical care: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of point of care ultrasound in prehospital critical care: a systematic review
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0518-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten Thingemann Bøtker, Lars Jacobsen, Søren Steemann Rudolph, Lars Knudsen

Abstract

In 2011, the role of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) was defined as one of the top five research priorities in physician-provided prehospital critical care and future research topics were proposed; the feasibility of prehospital POCUS, changes in patient management induced by POCUS and education of providers. This systematic review aimed to assess these three topics by including studies examining all kinds of prehospital patients undergoing all kinds of prehospital POCUS examinations and studies examining any kind of POCUS education in prehospital critical care providers. By a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we identified and screened titles and abstracts of 3264 studies published from 2012 to 2017. Of these, 65 studies were read in full-text for assessment of eligibility and 27 studies were ultimately included and assessed for quality by SIGN-50 checklists. No studies compared patient outcome with and without prehospital POCUS. Four studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility and changes in patient management in trauma. Two studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility and changes in patient management in breathing difficulties. Four studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility, outcome prediction and changes in patient management in cardiac arrest, but also that POCUS may prolong pauses in compressions. Two studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that short (few hours) teaching sessions are sufficient for obtaining simple interpretation skills, but not image acquisition skills. Three studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that longer one- or two-day courses including hands-on training are sufficient for learning simple, but not advanced, image acquisition skills. Three studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that systematic educational programs including supervised examinations are sufficient for learning advanced image acquisition skills in healthy volunteers, but that more than 50 clinical examinations are required for expertise in a clinical setting. Prehospital POCUS is feasible and changes patient management in trauma, breathing difficulties and cardiac arrest, but it is unknown if this improves outcome. Expertise in POCUS requires extensive training by a combination of theory, hands-on training and a substantial amount of clinical examinations - a large part of these needs to be supervised.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 238 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Other 33 14%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Master 23 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 52 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 16%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Mathematics 2 <1%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 69 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2021.
All research outputs
#817,256
of 20,624,278 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#66
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,402
of 295,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,624,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them