• Stig Holm Ovesen, ClausenAndreas HvilshøjAHEmergency Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Hans Kirkegaard, Bo Løfgren, Rasmus Aagaard, Søren Helbo Skaarup, Michael Dan Arvig, LorentzenMorten HjarnøMHDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Sønderjylland, Aabenraa, Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, Denmark., KristensenAnne HeltborgAHDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hospital Sønderjylland, Aabenraa, Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, Denmark., Mariana Bichuette Cartuliares, Casper Falster, Liting Tong, Alessandra Rabajoli, Ronja Leth, Janeve Desy, MaIrene W YIWYDivision of General Internal Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada., and Jesper Weile.
• Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Emergency Department, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark. Electronic address: stigholm@clin.au.dk.
• Chest. 2024 Sep 1; 166 (3): 544560544-560.

BackgroundThis scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the evidence of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) in emergency medicine. By emphasizing clinical topics, time trends, study designs, and the scope of the primary outcomes, a map is provided for physicians and researchers to guide their future initiatives.Research QuestionWhich study designs and primary outcomes are reported in published studies of LUS in emergency medicine?Study Design And MethodsWe performed a systematic search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for LUS studies published prior to May 13, 2023. Study characteristics were synthesized quantitatively. The primary outcomes in all papers were categorized into the hierarchical Fryback and Thornbury levels.ResultsA total of 4,076 papers were screened and, following selection and handsearching, 406 papers were included. The number of publications doubled from January 2020 to May 2023 (204 to 406 papers). The study designs were primarily observational (n = 375 [92%]), followed by randomized (n = 18 [4%]) and case series (n = 13 [3%]). The primary outcome measure concerned diagnostic accuracy in 319 papers (79%), diagnostic thinking in 32 (8%), therapeutic changes in 4 (1%), and patient outcomes in 14 (3%). No increase in the proportions of randomized controlled trials or the scope of primary outcome measures was observed with time. A freely available interactive database was created to enable readers to search for any given interest (https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/blinded/viz/LUSinEM_240216/INFO).InterpretationObservational diagnostic studies have been produced in abundance, leaving a paucity of research exploring clinical utility. Notably, research exploring whether LUS causes changes to clinical decisions is imperative prior to any further research being made into patient benefits.Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…