ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Fasting before elective abdominal ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fasting before elective abdominal ultrasound is widely recommended to improve image quality or visualization of abdominal structures although supporting evidence is limited. We examined whether fasting is associated with improved diagnostic or image quality-related outcomes in adult abdominal ultrasound. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42024568514) of studies comparing fasting and non-fasting conditions in adults undergoing elective abdominal ultrasound (search date July 18, 2025; 5 databases). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed, and randomized trials were pooled using random effects models. Real-world preparation recommendations were evaluated across international ultrasound society guidelines and patient-facing sources. 14 studies (9 randomized trials, 5 observational studies; 2,208 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Five randomized trials were eligible for meta-analysis; three were included in the primary analysis (n = 378). Two trials contributed organ-specific outcomes to sensitivity analyses. Fasting did not improve overall diagnostic sufficiency, defined as adequate visualization to answer the clinical question without repeat imaging (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.51-1.86, p = 0.92; I
Indexed as
Identifiers
42714807What 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.