The use of focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) in a prehospital setting is recommended. Pocket ultrasound devices (PUDs) appear to be well suited to prehospital FoCUS. The main aim of our study was to evaluate the interpretability of echocardiography performed in a prehospital setting using a PUD based on the experience of the emergency physician (EP).
This was a monocentric prospective observational study. We defined experienced emergency physicians (EEPs) and novice emergency physicians (NEPs) as echocardiographers if they had performed 50 echocardiographies since their initial university training (theoretical training and at least 25 echocardiographies performed with a mentor). Each patient undergoing prehospital echocardiography with a PUD was included. Four diagnostic items based on FoCUS were analyzed: pericardial effusions (PE), right ventricular dilation (RVD), qualitative left ventricular function assessment (LVEF), and inferior vena cava compliance (IVCC). Two independent experts blindly evaluated the interpretability of each item by examining recorded video loops. If their opinions were divided, then a third expert concluded.
Fourteen EPs participated: eight (57 %) EEPs and six (43 %) NEPs. Eighty-five patients were included: 34 (40 %) had an echocardiography by an NEP and 51 (60 %) by an EEP. The mean number of interpretable items by echocardiography was three [1; 4]; one [0; 2.25] in the NEP group, four [3; 4] in EEP (p < .01). The patient position was also associated with interpretable items: supine three [2; 4], "45°" three [1; 4], sitting two [1; 4] (p = .02). In multivariate analysis, only EP experience was associated with the number of interpretable items (p = .02). Interpretability by NEPs and EEPs was: 56 % vs. 96 % for LVF, 29 % vs. 98 % for PE, 26 % vs. 92 % for RVD, and 21 % vs. 67 % for IVCC (p < .01 for all).
FoCUS with PUD in prehospital conditions was possible for EEPs, It is difficult and the diagnostic yield is poor for NEPs.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
1
1%
Other
4
5%
Unknown
25
29%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2025.
All research outputs
#18,954,110
of 29,212,704 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,093
of 1,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,529
of 281,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,212,704 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
