ArticleCirculation reports2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Meta-Analysis and 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 5 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
5 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
- In-Hospital and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Categorized as SCAI Shock Stage B.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Can FoCUS Speed Up the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Transcatheter management of cardiogenic shock in severe aortic stenosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
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, cardiac tamponade, and pulmonary embolism are critical conditions in cardiovascular emergencies, characterized by high mortality rates. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to improve outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for evaluating shock. However, further assessment through the latest meta-analyses is necessary to comprehensively evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in cardiogenic emergencies. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in patients with cardiogenic and obstructive shock. Methods and Results: Up to December 31, 2023, we systematically reviewed 9 studies reporting all 4 values (true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative) published in the PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases: 8 studies assessed cardiac shock, and 8 assessed obstructive shock separately. For cardiac shock, the pooled sensitivity was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.5-93.9%), and specificity was 95.8% (95% CI: 94.0-97.2%). For obstructive shock, the pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (95% CI: 62.5-87.6%) and specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.9-99.1%). The area under the curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for cardiogenic shock and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98) for obstructive shock. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested that POCUS has reasonable diagnostic accuracy for cardiogenic and obstructive shock, particularly with high pooled specificity.
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.