Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in adult non-traumatic emergency medicine: an umbrella review.
8 affiliations
- 1Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. [email protected].
- 2Department of Emergency Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. [email protected].
- 3Department of Emergency Medicine, Lindenhofspital, Bern, Switzerland. [email protected].
- 4Department of Emergency Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- 5Department of Internal Medicine, Spital Emmental, Burgdorf, Switzerland.
- 6Medical Library, University Library of Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- 7Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- 8Institute for Primary Healthcare (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
Background
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an increasingly used diagnostic tool in adult emergency departments (ED). Although numerous diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews (DTA-SR) evaluating various POCUS applications are available, clinicians often face uncertainty due to ungraded accuracy estimates and inconsistent evidence. We conducted an umbrella review to (i) summarize diagnostic accuracy evidence for POCUS across adult non-traumatic emergency medicine-relevant conditions, (ii) provide GRADE-based ratings of pooled sensitivity and specificity, and (iii) synthesize findings when multiple DTA-SR addressed the same condition.Methods
We systematically searched PubMed and Embase from database inception to April 2026 for DTA-SR with meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic performance of POCUS in adult ED populations for non-traumatic emergency medicine-relevant conditions. DTA-SR were included if they reported pooled sensitivity and specificity against accepted reference standards. The methodological quality was assessed using a DTA-adapted AMSTAR 2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were graded using the GRADE approach. Results were synthesized using a predefined hierarchical decision framework to account for overlap between primary studies.Results
A total of 197 DTA-SR were included, most focusing on cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, or musculoskeletal conditions. About half were conducted in ED; the rest examined emergency medicine-relevant conditions in specialist settings. Methodological quality was mostly low or moderate. Diagnostic utility varied substantially across conditions. Among 91 evaluated conditions, 12 fulfilled predefined criteria for combined rule-in/rule-out supportive applications, 17 for primarily rule-in supportive applications, and 6 for primarily rule-out supportive applications (defined as pooled sensitivity or specificity ≥ 90% with at least moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining conditions were categorized as adjunctive because these thresholds were not met. Overall, certainty of evidence was frequently low or very low.Conclusions
POCUS shows promising diagnostic accuracy across adult non-traumatic emergency medicine-relevant conditions, often with moderate to high sensitivity and very high specificity. However, the overall strength and consistency of the evidence are limited. Therefore, diagnostic performance estimates should be interpreted with caution and within the context of each specific clinical condition, and should not be considered directly comparable or additive across different indications. Further high-quality research is needed to better define its role in emergency care.Clinical trial number
Clinical trial number: CRD42024587695.
Related
- CT-Referenced Diagnostic Performance and Complementary Error Patterns of Artificial Intelligence Versus a Single Emergency Physician in Chest Radiograph Interpretation: A Retrospective Paired Diagnostic Accuracy Study
- Diagnostic Performance of Color Doppler Ultrasound for Detecting Nuchal Cord and Associated Immediate Neonatal Outcomes at Term in Uganda: A Prospective Diagnostic‐Accuracy Cohort Study
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric Ultrasound Versus Cross-Sectional Imaging for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Cervical Lymph Nodes: A Histopathology-Referenced Retrospective Study
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Arthroscopy Correlation in Traumatic Knee Injuries: A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal Ultrasound in Pediatric Patients with Signs and Symptoms of Intussusception
BibTeX
@article{schneider2026diagnostic,
title = {{Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in adult non-traumatic emergency medicine: an umbrella review.}},
author = {Claudio Schneider and Nico Frei and Antoine Fernandez and Catherine Frei and Katharina Wahedi and Julius Husarek and Tanya Karrer and Carole Elodie Aubert and Beat Lehmann and Martin Müller},
journal = {BMC medicine},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s12916-026-05094-2},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42907895},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in adult non-traumatic emergency medicine: an umbrella review.
AU - Claudio Schneider
AU - Nico Frei
AU - Antoine Fernandez
AU - Catherine Frei
AU - Katharina Wahedi
AU - Julius Husarek
AU - Tanya Karrer
AU - Carole Elodie Aubert
AU - Beat Lehmann
AU - Martin Müller
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - BMC medicine
DO - 10.1186/s12916-026-05094-2
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42907895
AB - Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an increasingly used diagnostic tool in adult emergency departments (ED). Although numerous diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews (DTA-SR) evaluating various POCUS applications are available, clinicians often face uncertainty due to ungraded accuracy estimates and inconsistent evidence. We conducted an umbrella review to (i) summarize diagnostic accuracy evidence for POCUS across adult non-traumatic emergency medicine-relevant conditions, (ii) provide GRADE-based ratings of pooled sensitivity and specificity, and (iii) synthesize findings when multiple DTA-SR addressed the same condition.Methods We systematically searched PubMed and Embase from database inception to April 2026 for DTA-SR with meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic performance of POCUS in adult ED populations for non-traumatic emergency medicine-relevant conditions. DTA-SR were included if they reported pooled sensitivity and specificity against accepted reference standards. The methodological quality was assessed using a DTA-adapted AMSTAR 2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were graded using the GRADE approach. Results were synthesized using a predefined hierarchical decision framework to account for overlap between primary studies.Results A total of 197 DTA-SR were included, most focusing on cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, or musculoskeletal conditions. About half were conducted in ED; the rest examined emergency medicine-relevant conditions in specialist settings. Methodological quality was mostly low or moderate. Diagnostic utility varied substantially across conditions. Among 91 evaluated conditions, 12 fulfilled predefined criteria for combined rule-in/rule-out supportive applications, 17 for primarily rule-in supportive applications, and 6 for primarily rule-out supportive applications (defined as pooled sensitivity or specificity ≥ 90% with at least moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining conditions were categorized as adjunctive because these thresholds were not met. Overall, certainty of evidence was frequently low or very low.Conclusions POCUS shows promising diagnostic accuracy across adult non-traumatic emergency medicine-relevant conditions, often with moderate to high sensitivity and very high specificity. However, the overall strength and consistency of the evidence are limited. Therefore, diagnostic performance estimates should be interpreted with caution and within the context of each specific clinical condition, and should not be considered directly comparable or additive across different indications. Further high-quality research is needed to better define its role in emergency care.Clinical trial number Clinical trial number: CRD42024587695.
SN - 1741-7015
ER -