Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound in General Practice: A Systematic Review

Open access
Andersen, Camilla Aakjær, Holden, Sinead, Vela, Jonathan, Rathleff, Michael Skovdal, Jensen, Martin Bach·2019·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE Ultrasound examinations are currently being implemented in general practice. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the training in and use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) by general practitioners. METHODS We followed the Cochrane guidelines for conduct and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting. We searched the databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the key words ultrasonography and general practice in combination and using thesaurus terms. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using an established checklist. RESULTS We included in our review a total of 51 full-text articles. POCUS was applied for a variety of purposes, with the majority of scans focused on abdominal and obstetric indications. The length of training programs varied from 2 to 320 hours. Competence in some types of focused ultrasound scans could be attained with only few hours of training. Focused POCUS scans were reported to have a higher diagnostic accuracy and be associated with less harm than more comprehensive scans or screening scans. The included studies were of a low quality, however, mainly because of issues with design and reporting. CONCLUSIONS POCUS has the potential to be an important tool for the general practitioner and may possibly reduce health care costs. Future research should aim to assess the quality of ultrasound scans in broader groups of general practitioners, further explore how these clinicians should be trained, and evaluate the clinical course of patients who undergo scanning by general practitioners.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.2330

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 303

Metadata

Authors
Andersen, C. A., Holden, S., Vela, J., Rathleff, M. S., & Jensen, M. B.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2019-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
61-69
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2787700169
Cited by
303
References
1
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Point-of-Care Ultrasound in General Practice: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.2330
The paper
Andersen, C. A., Holden, S., Vela, J., Rathleff, M. S., & Jensen, M. B. (2019). Point-of-Care Ultrasound in General Practice: A Systematic Review. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2330

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.