Hemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
The diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
On the basis of very low to moderate quality evidence, POCUS may perform better at ruling in shock subtypes and specific shock etiologies than ruling them out.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with shock
- Participants
- 2,088 adults · 18 studies
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) of POCUS for shock subtypes and specific etiologies
Methodological detailsprospective studies only, risk of bias assessed
- Prospective studies only
- Risk of bias assessed
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Pooled sensitivity and specificity of POCUS for shock subtype and specific shock etiology
- Hypovolemic shock: sensitivity
- 90% (81 to 95) (95% CI)
- Hypovolemic shock: specificity
- 95% (90 to 97) (95% CI)
- Cardiogenic shock: sensitivity
- 95% (84 to 98) (95% CI)
- Cardiogenic shock: specificity
- 98% (97 to 99) (95% CI)
- Distributive shock: sensitivity
- 78% (69 to 85) (95% CI)
- Distributive shock: specificity
- 97% (94 to 99) (95% CI)
- Obstructive shock: sensitivity
- 94% (85 to 97) (95% CI)
- Obstructive shock: specificity
- 99% (98 to 100) (95% CI)
- Mixed shock: sensitivity
- 85% (77 to 91) (95% CI)
- Mixed shock: specificity
- 98% (91 to 100) (95% CI)
- Sepsis: sensitivity
- 78% (18 to 98) (95% CI)
- Sepsis: specificity
- 96% (87 to 99) (95% CI)
- PE: sensitivity
- 92% (71 to 98) (95% CI)
- PE: specificity
- 99% (83 to 100) (95% CI)
- Cardiac tamponade: sensitivity
- 100% (69 to 100) (95% CI)
- Cardiac tamponade: specificity
- 100% (98 to 100) (95% CI)
Original publication
The diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. Published 2 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →