Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prehospital ultrasound scanning for abdominal free fluid detection in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 24, Article number: 7 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Focused assessment with sonography for trauma helps detect abdominal free fluid. Prehospital ultrasound scanning is also important because the early diagnosis of hemoperitoneum may reduce the time to definitive treatment in the hospital. This study investigated whether prehospital ultrasound scanning can help detect abdominal free fluid.

Materials and methods

In this systematic review, relevant databases were searched for studies investigating prehospital ultrasound examinations for abdominal free fluid in trauma patients. The prehospital ultrasound results were compared with computed tomography, surgery, or hospital ultrasound examination data. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values were analyzed using forest plots. The overall predictive power was calculated by the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed to assess the certainty of evidence.

Result

This meta-analysis comprised six studies that included 1356 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.596 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.345–0.822) and 0.970 (95% CI = 0.953–0.983), respectively. The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.998. The quality assessment tool showed favorable results. In the GRADE analysis, the quality of evidence was very low for sensitivity and high for specificity when prehospital ultrasound was used for hemoperitoneum diagnosis.

Conclusion

The specificity of abdominal free fluid detection using prehospital ultrasound examinations in trauma patients was very high.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) has been widely used in trauma patients to detect free fluid [1]. Compared with computed tomography (CT) or other advanced examinations, ultrasound scanning can be performed at the bedside and on unstable patients, thereby precluding deterioration of patient’s condition during transportation from the scene to examination areas. Additionally, ultrasound helps decision-making and facilitates early diagnosis [2]. The FAST exam serves as an adjunct to primary survey and management in the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) algorithm [3].

FAST scanning is crucial in abdominal trauma patients because it significantly influences decision-making [4]. In prehospital emergency rescue settings, triage is the process of prioritizing patient treatment during mass-casualty events. Early recognition of critical patients who require emergent management is the top priority. In abdominal trauma patients, any delay in prehospital transport or management of intra-abdominal bleeding can significantly increase the risk of death [5]. Thus, prehospital FAST scanning in abdominal trauma patients is critical, as it allows for the early diagnosis of hemoperitoneum, potentially reducing the time to definitive treatment [6, 7].

However, ultrasound scanning in the prehospital environment poses challenges due to interference in mobile ambulances, insufficient time, difficulty visualizing the screen, the low quality of handheld ultrasound machines, obesity, and abdominal bowel gas distension [8].

Prehospital ultrasound has been widely used in various situations. For instance, prehospital ultrasound chest scans help diagnose pneumothorax and hemothorax [9, 10]. In out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, prehospital ultrasound can detect cardiac activity during resuscitation [11, 12]. Despite its usefulness in these scenarios, prehospital ultrasound scanning for abdominal free fluid detection has not been well evaluated, and a detailed meta-analysis is lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether prehospital ultrasound scanning can also help detect abdominal free fluid in trauma patients.

Materials and methods

The study protocol and literature search strategy

This study was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [13]. A completed preferred reporting item for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist was provided in supplemental appendix file 1. Electronic searches were performed by two authors (Kun-Te Lin and Cheng-Chieh Huang) using the PubMed and Embase databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to August 3, 2023. The search terms used were “prehospital” AND (“ultrasound” OR “echography” OR “focused assessment with sonography for trauma” OR “FAST”) AND “trauma”. Search strategies for all databases were listed in supplemental appendix file 2.

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

  1. 1.

    Randomized or observational trials in trauma patients who received a free fluid exam involving a prehospital abdominal ultrasound.

  2. 2.

    Patients who underwent abdominal ultrasound examinations, CT examinations, or surgery in the hospital; these patients were used as the reference standard for abdominal free fluid evaluation.

The exclusion criteria were as follows:

  1. 1.

    Articles without full text available or that were not written in English.

  2. 2.

    Case series studies, conference papers, or studies without recorded data.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

We recorded the first author, year, study design, clinical scenario, patient number, index test, and reference test for each study. True positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) values, sensitivities, and specificities were extracted from each study for prehospital abdominal ultrasound in free fluid examinations. A random-effects model was employed to pool the sensitivities and specificities of prehospital ultrasound examinations with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The pooled results were presented using forest plots. Additionally, the overall predictive power was calculated by constructing a summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve. The heterogeneity between the studies was determined by a chi-square test. Values over 50% were considered to have considerable heterogeneity [14]. Furthermore, a funnel plot was used to examine potential publication bias [15]. The statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager (Version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark).

Bias and study quality assessment

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the bias and quality of the included studies [16]. Two main categories were evaluated: the risk of bias and applicability concerns. The tool comprised four main domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain was categorized as low-risk (green), unclear risk (yellow), or high-risk (red). Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussions by two authors (Kun-Te Lin and Zih-Yang Lin).

Assessment of evidence certainty

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was utilized to evaluate the certainty of evidence in this meta-analysis [17]. This evaluation was carried out by two authors (Kun-Te Lin and Zih-Yang Lin). In GRADE, the certainty of evidence was assessed based on five domains: risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. The test accuracy for sensitivity and specificity was then categorized into four levels of evidence: “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”.

Result

Literature review

A total of 2259 publications were identified through electronic searches and literature review. After duplicate removal, 1032 publications were selected for meticulous evaluation. Ten publications were selected for full-text retrieval after title and abstract evaluations. The following four studies were excluded from the analysis: two observational studies [18, 19] that investigated hospital rather than prehospital ultrasound examinations, one observational study [20] that did not adopt a reference test in comparing ultrasound findings, and one observational study [10] that did not involve the independent quantification of patients’ number of pneumothorax, hemothorax, and abdominal free fluid. Finally, six studies were used for qualitative analysis and meta-analysis [21,22,23,24,25,26]. The literature review flow chart is shown in Fig. 1. The patient numbers and characteristics of the included studies are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Inclusion process of the selected studies

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Summary of the prehospital ultrasound exam scenarios
Full size table

Pooled analysis of the included studies

A total of 1356 patients from six studies were included in this meta-analysis. The forest plot of pooled sensitivity was 0.596 (95% CI = 0.345–0.822), while the pooled specificity was 0.970 (95% CI = 0.953–0.983), as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The sROC curve is displayed in Fig. 4. The pooled area under the curve (AUC) of the sROC curve was 0.998. The heterogeneity of sensitivity was 94%, and the heterogeneity of specificity was 45%, both determined by the chi-square test. The funnel plots of sensitivity and specificity are shown in Fig. 5a and b.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sensitivity and specificity of the selected studies

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots of pooled sensitivity and specificity values

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

The sROC curve

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Funnel plots of sensitivity and specificity

Full size image

Quality assessment of the selected studies and certainty of evidence for the meta-analysis

The risk of bias analysis and quality assessment of the included studies are presented in Fig. 6; these evaluations were conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. Overall, the risk of bias was low, and the clinical applicability was suitable in most of the selected studies. Each study achieved at least four out of seven low-risk bias point assessments. Regarding the certainty of evidence for the meta-analysis, it was rated as very low for sensitivity and high for specificity using the GRADE approach evaluation. The detailed GRADE evaluation result is shown in Table 3.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Quality assessment and risk of bias in the included studies

Full size image
Table 3 The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation assessment
Full size table

Discussion

In this meta-analysis of prehospital ultrasound for the diagnosis of abdominal free fluid in trauma patients, the pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.596 and 0.970, respectively. Although the pooled sensitivity was not high, the pooled specificity was highly favorable. The funnel plot of sensitivity showed asymmetry, indicating the presence of publication bias for sensitivity. However, the funnel plot of specificity displayed a mostly centralized distributed, suggesting no significant publication bias for specificity. The heterogeneity between the studies was identified in the pooled sensitivity analysis and by visualizing the sROC curve. The heterogeneity revealed that different ultrasound operators, physicians, or paramedics performing prehospital ultrasound scanning could have variable sensitivity and specificity results. The AUC of the sROC curve was 0.998, indicating excellent diagnostic performance [27] of prehospital ultrasound scanning in evaluating abdominal free fluid.

The insufficient sensitivity of prehospital ultrasound scanning for identifying abdominal free fluid may be attributed to the following reasons. First, ultrasound is operator dependent, and it takes time to perform suitable scanning. The challenging conditions inside mobile ambulances and helicopters may further impede the ability to quickly obtain a perfect view during prehospital scanning. Second, ultrasound is less sensitive in detecting retroperitoneal free fluid compared to CT and surgical intervention, which can identify retroperitoneal free fluid more readily [4, 28, 29]. Third, the time interval between prehospital ultrasound scanning and hospital CT scan or surgery may contribute to the discrepancy in sensitivity. The initial level of hemoperitoneum may be insufficient to yield a positive finding during prehospital ultrasound scanning. As time progresses, the accumulation of hemoperitoneum could become visible on subsequent examinations [30, 31].

In the interpretation of prehospital ultrasound screening for abdominal free fluid, a positive finding suggests the presence of hemoperitoneum, but a negative finding should not be used definitely exclude its existence. Given the potential challenges and limitations of prehospital ultrasound scanning, a second look and follow-up exam should be considered, especially in cases where there is high clinical suspicion of abdominal free fluid.

The quality assessment and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool showed a favorable overall quality assessment of the included studies. A low risk of bias was observed in at least four out of seven assessments per study. The flow and timing assessment was mainly attributed to unclear risks of bias in selected studies because the time between the prehospital ultrasound scan and the CT scan or surgery in the hospital was not clearly recorded. As a result, the certainty of the flow and timing and its potential impact on the diagnostic accuracy might be less robust. However, the applicability concerns were all rated as low risk because the patients chosen from each study matched the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis.

The certainty of evidence for the meta-analysis was rated as very low for sensitivity and high for specificity using the GRADE approach evaluation. The low certainty of evidence for sensitivity might be attributed to factors such as variations in ultrasound operators, different environment conditions, different patient characteristics, and diverse ultrasound machines. These factors could introduce heterogeneity in the sensitivity results, making it challenging to draw firm conclusions. On the other hand, the high certainty of evidence for specificity suggests that the finding of high specificity in prehospital ultrasound scanning for detecting hemoperitoneum is reliable and consistent across the included studies. This indicates that if hemoperitoneum is detected using prehospital ultrasound, it is highly likely to be present, making it a valuable tool in the assessment of trauma patients.

The application of prehospital ultrasound scanning in trauma has recently increased [32]. Prehospital ultrasound scanning is helpful in mass casualty incident triage [33, 34]. Early diagnosis of hemoperitoneum using prehospital ultrasound scanning shortens the time to definitive management and facilitates timely therapy plan changes [6, 7]. A previous study found that a positive prehospital FAST result was associated with a significantly reduced time to definitive management compared to a negative result (20 min vs. 138 min) [35]. Prehospital ultrasound examinations also influenced important treatment decisions related to patients’ information provided to the receiving hospital, the method of transport, the choice of destination hospital, and fluid management approaches in 12.6% of patients in a retrospective analysis [23].

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, prehospital ultrasound scanning demonstrated high specificity in the statistical analyses of traumatic abdominal free fluid evaluations. The high AUC of the sROC curve indicated good diagnostic performance of prehospital ultrasound scanning for abdominal free fluid detection. The highly specific but not highly sensitive result implies that that that a positive ultrasound finding suggests the presence of hemoperitoneum, but a negative result does not exclude its presence entirely. Therefore, a second look or follow-up exam should be considered.

This meta-analysis still had some limitations. First, heterogeneity existed between the included studies, indicating that different operators, physicians, or paramedics performing prehospital ultrasound scanning could have influenced the sensitivity and specificity results. Second, the different interval timing between prehospital ultrasound scanning and CT scan or surgery in the hospital may have interfered with the accurate detection of hemoperitoneum. Regretfully, the included studies did not record the interval timing clearly. Future studies should prioritize investigating and standardizing the interval timing to better understand the diagnostic capabilities of prehospital ultrasound in detecting initial hemoperitoneum.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Rippey JC, Royse AG. Ultrasound in trauma. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2009;23(3):343–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montoya J, Stawicki SP, Evans DC, Bahner DP, Sparks S, Sharpe RP, et al. From FAST to E-FAST: an overview of the evolution of ultrasound-based traumatic injury assessment. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(2):119–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Trauma AC. .o.S.C.o. ATLS®: advanced trauma life support student course manual. American College of Surgeons; 2018.

  4. Richards JR, McGahan JP. Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) in 2017: what radiologists can learn. Radiology. 2017;283(1):30–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke JR, Trooskin SZ, Doshi PJ, Greenwald L, Mode CJ. Time to laparotomy for intra-abdominal bleeding from trauma does affect survival for delays up to 90 minutes. J Trauma. 2002;52(3):420–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Dochartaigh D, Douma M. Prehospital ultrasound of the abdomen and thorax changes trauma patient management: a systematic review. Injury. 2015;46(11):2093–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Weide L, Popal Z, Terra M, Schwarte LA, Ket JCF, Kooij FO, et al. Prehospital Ultrasound in the Management of Trauma Patients: Systematic Review of the Literature Injury. 2019;50(12):2167–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Dochartaigh D, Douma M, MacKenzie M. Five-year Retrospective Review of Physician and non-physician Performed Ultrasound in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(1):24–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffiths E. Helicopter emergency medical services use of thoracic point of care ultrasound for pneumothorax: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021;29(1):163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yates JG, Baylous D. Aeromedical Ultrasound: the evaluation of point-of-care Ultrasound during Helicopter Transport. Air Med J. 2017;36(3):110–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bøtker MT, Jacobsen L, Rudolph SS, Knudsen L. The role of point of care ultrasound in prehospital critical care: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fitzgibbon JB, Lovallo E, Escajeda J, Radomski MA, Martin-Gill C. Feasibility of out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Ultrasound by EMS Physicians. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019;23(3):297–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, Lang DM, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy. 2009;64(8):1109–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim CH, Shin SD, Song KJ, Park CB. Diagnostic accuracy of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examinations performed by emergency medical technicians. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2012;16(3):400–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar S, Bansal VK, Muduly DK, Sharma P, Misra MC, Chumber S, et al. Accuracy of focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) in Blunt Trauma Abdomen-A prospective study. Indian J Surg. 2015;77(Suppl 2):393–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Simmons CJ, Mack LD, Cronin AJ, Monti JD, Perreault MD, Ahern BJ. FAST performance in a stationary versus In-Motion military ambulance utilizing Handheld Ultrasound: a randomized controlled study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35(6):632–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Walcher F, Weinlich M, Conrad G, Schweigkofler U, Breitkreutz R, Kirschning T, et al. Prehospital ultrasound imaging improves management of abdominal trauma. Br J Surg. 2006;93(2):238–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Press GM, Miller SK, Hassan IA, Alade KH, Camp E, Junco DD, et al. Prospective evaluation of prehospital trauma ultrasound during aeromedical transport. J Emerg Med. 2014;47(6):638–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ketelaars R, Holtslag JJM, Hoogerwerf N. Abdominal prehospital ultrasound impacts treatment decisions in a Dutch Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26(4):277–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gamberini L, Tartaglione M, Giugni A, Alban L, Allegri D, Coniglio C, et al. The role of prehospital ultrasound in reducing time to definitive care in abdominal trauma patients with moderate to severe liver and spleen injuries. Injury. 2022;53(5):1587–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lucas B, Hempel D, Otto R, Brenner F, Stier M, Marzi I, et al. Prehospital FAST reduces time to admission and operative treatment: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(4):2701–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Partyka C, Coggins A, Bliss J, Burns B, Fiorentino M, Goorkiz P, et al. A multicenter evaluation of the accuracy of prehospital eFAST by a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service. Emerg Radiol. 2022;29(2):299–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones CM. And T.J.T.A.o.t.s. Athanasiou. Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis Techniques in the Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests. 2005;79(1):16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Daly KP, Ho CP, Persson DL, Gay SB. Trauma Retroperitoneal Injuries: Rev Multidetector CT Find Radiographics. 2008;28(6):1571–90.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mondie C, Maguire NJ, Rentea RM. Retroperitoneal Hematoma, in StatPearls. 2022, StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island (FL).

  30. Blackbourne LH, Soffer D, McKenney M, Amortegui J, Schulman CI, Crookes B, et al. Secondary ultrasound examination increases the sensitivity of the FAST exam in blunt trauma. J Trauma. 2004;57(5):934–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rajabzadeh Kanafi A, Giti M, Gharavi MH, Alizadeh A, Pourghorban R, Shekarchi B. Diagnostic accuracy of secondary ultrasound exam in blunt abdominal trauma. Iran J Radiol. 2014;11(3):e21010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Mercer CB, Ball M, Cash RE, Rivard MK, Chrzan K, Panchal AR. Ultrasound Use in the Prehospital setting for trauma: a systematic review. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021;25(4):566–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. BET 2: Is prehospital focused abdominal ultrasound useful during triage at mass casualty incidents? Emerg Med J. 2013;30(7):596–597.

  34. Wydo SM, Seamon MJ, Melanson SW, Thomas P, Bahner DP, Stawicki SP. Portable ultrasound in Disaster triage: a focused review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(2):151–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bodnar D, Rashford S, Hurn C, Quinn J, Parker L, Isoardi K, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients administered blood in the prehospital environment by a road based trauma response team. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(7):583–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, 135 Nanshsiao Street, 500, Changhua, Taiwan

    Kun-Te Lin, Zih-Yang Lin, Cheng-Chieh Huang & Yan-Ren Lin

  2. Department of Biological Science and Technology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan

    Cheng-Chieh Huang

  3. Fire Bureau of Changhua County Government, Changhua, Taiwan

    Shang-Yan Yu, Jing-Lan Huang & Jian-Houng Lin

  4. Department of Post-Baccalaureate Medicine, College of Medicine, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Yan-Ren Lin

  5. School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Yan-Ren Lin

Authors
  1. Kun-Te Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zih-Yang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheng-Chieh Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shang-Yan Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jing-Lan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jian-Houng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yan-Ren Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y-RL, K-TL and C-CH conceived the study. K-TL and Z-YL analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. C-CH provided statistical advice on the study design. S-YY, J-LH and J-HL helped with the revision of the manuscript. Y-RL assumes responsibility for the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan-Ren Lin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1: PRISMA-P check list

Supplementary Material 2: Search strategies

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, KT., Lin, ZY., Huang, CC. et al. Prehospital ultrasound scanning for abdominal free fluid detection in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Emerg Med 24, 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-023-00919-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-023-00919-2

Keywords

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us