↓ Skip to main content

Common pitfalls in point-of-care ultrasound: a practical guide for emergency and critical care physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Ultrasound Journal, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 179)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
394 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
Title
Common pitfalls in point-of-care ultrasound: a practical guide for emergency and critical care physicians
Published in
Critical Ultrasound Journal, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13089-016-0052-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Blanco, Giovanni Volpicelli

Abstract

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is a widely used tool in emergency and critical care settings, useful in the decision-making process as well as in interventional guidance. While having an impressive diagnostic accuracy in the hands of highly skilled operators, inexperienced practitioners must be aware of some common misinterpretations that may lead to wrong decisions at the bedside. This article provides a revision list of common POCUS misdiagnoses usually found in practice and offers useful tips to recognize and avoid them. The following aspects were selected and reviewed: pericardial effusion vs. pleural vs. ascites vs. epicardial fat; right ventricle dilation in acute pulmonary embolism and inferior vena cava for volume status assessment in cardiac ultrasound; lung point and lung pulse misinterpretations and mirror artifacts vs. lung consolidations in lung ultrasound; peritoneal fluid vs. the stomach and a critical appraisal of gallbladder signs of acute cholecystitis in abdominal ultrasound; the rouleaux phenomenon vs. deep vein thrombosis or acute right strain in vascular ultrasound. Following some rules in technique and interpretation, and always integrating POCUS findings into the broader clinical context, most POCUS misdiagnosis can be avoided, and thus patients' safety can be enhanced. Being aware of a list of common pitfalls may help to avoid misdiagnoses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 394 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 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 239 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 42 18%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Postgraduate 29 12%
Student > Master 22 9%
Lecturer 18 8%
Other 62 26%
Unknown 35 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 170 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 3 1%
Neuroscience 3 1%
Other 7 3%
Unknown 43 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 278. 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 03 October 2021.
All research outputs
#76,586
of 19,047,010 outputs
Outputs from Critical Ultrasound Journal
#1
of 179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,475
of 304,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Ultrasound Journal
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,047,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 304,988 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.