ArticleCirculation reports2025
Prognostic Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Patients With Suspected Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. 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.
- The Role of PoCUS in the Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiogenic shock, a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in emergency departments, requires rapid diagnosis and management. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used as a bedside tool; however, its impact on prognosis in patients with suspected cardiogenic shock remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether POCUS improves the clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and Results: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to December 31, 2023, for studies evaluating the prognostic impact of POCUS in adults with undifferentiated shock, including cardiogenic shock. From 3,759 identified records, 2 studies (1 randomized controlled trial [RCT] and 1 observational study) involving 5,711 patients with shock were included. The RCT showed no significant differences in in-hospital mortality between the POCUS and non-POCUS groups (relative risk [RR] 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-1.51]). The observational study reported higher mortality in patients receiving POCUS before intervention (RR 1.25 [95% CI 1.12-1.39]). Overall, POCUS did not significantly reduce mortality in patients with suspected cardiogenic shock. Given the limited number and quality of available studies, the certainty of evidence was low (RCT) and very low (observational study). Conclusions: Although POCUS plays an essential role in diagnosis and clinical decision-making, our review suggests that it may not significantly improve prognosis in patients with suspected cardiogenic shock. Further studies are required to determine its prognostic value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.