Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 article

Clinical utility of ultrasound by general practitioners: a systematic review

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
3Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : ch. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background The clinical use of ultrasound by general practitioners has expanded rapidly, but uncertainty persists in clinical practice regarding which indications can improve diagnostic process and which rather represent low-value care. Methods We conducted a systematic review of clinical guidelines published between 2014 and 2024 addressing ultrasound indications relevant to general practitioners. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and major guideline repositories. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted recommendations, and assessed quality using the AGREE II instrument. Recommendations were categorized by clinical condition, level of evidence, and strength of recommendation. Results Of 4015 records, 108 guidelines were included. A total of 293 recommendations (from 95 guidelines) supported the use of ultrasound (Strength of Recommendation A/B), while 66 recommendations (from 17 guidelines) discouraged its use (Strength of Recommendation D). Most appropriate indications involved cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and respiratory conditions, while the majority of low-value indications were found in the endocrinological, urological, and vascular conditions. Overall, methodological quality ranged from moderate to high: 70 (64.8%) guidelines were rated as high quality, while 38 (35.2%) showed moderate quality. Conclusions Ultrasound provides important clinical value for general practitioners, with many high-quality guidelines supporting its use for evidence-based indications. However, a substantial number of recommendations also highlight scenarios where ultrasound offers little benefit or is inappropriate, underscoring the need for more selective and judicious application. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024569842.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Clinical utility of ultrasound by general practitioners: a systematic review
Date Crossref
31/08/2026
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Ultrasound in Clinical ApplicationsHealthcare cost, quality, practicesUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.