Next Article in Journal
Objective Measurement of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Comprehensive Review
Previous Article in Journal
Integrating Clinical and Transcriptomic Profiles Associated with Vitamin D to Enhance Disease-Free Survival in Cervical Cancer Recurrence Using the CatBoost Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Paramedics Performed Sonographic Identification of the Conic Ligament—A Prospective Controlled Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/diagnostics15131580
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Within One Hour Associated with ED Flow and Resource Use in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study

by
Sheng-Yao Hung
1,2,
Fen-Wei Huang
1,
Wan-Ching Lien
3,4,
Te-Fa Chiu
1,2,
Tse-Chyuan Wong
1,2,
Wei-Jun Lin
1,2,5 and
Shih-Hao Wu
1,2,*
1
Department of Emergency Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 404327, Taiwan
2
School of Medicine, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 404328, Taiwan
3
Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100008, Taiwan
4
College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 100233, Taiwan
5
College of Public Health, China Medical University, Taichung 406040, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2025, 15(13), 1580; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15131580
Submission received: 25 April 2025 / Revised: 17 June 2025 / Accepted: 20 June 2025 / Published: 21 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Utility of Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Although the value of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is well-established for specific diseases and in the hands of trained users, its broader impact on overall ED efficiency is not yet fully known. This study aims to evaluate the association of early PoCUS, performed within 1 h of presentation, with ED patient flow, healthcare resource utilization, and quality of care in adults with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Method: This retrospective cohort study included 44,863 adult patients (≥18 years) presenting with non-traumatic abdominal pain from January 2021 to December 2023. Patients were grouped into PoCUS and no-PoCUS categories, with a subgroup analysis for those receiving PoCUS within 1 h, to evaluate ED LOS, and costs for different ED dispositions. Outcomes measured included hospital LOS, costs, mortality, and ICU admission. Results: The mean age of the subjects was 44.4 ± 17.9 years, and 61.2% were female. PoCUS was performed in 39.7% of cases, with 69.6% of these conducted within one hour. Additionally, 30.5% underwent CT. The PoCUS group had a significantly shorter ED LOS compared to the no-PoCUS group among patients admitted to general wards (p < 0.001), but not in outpatient dispositions (p = 0.282) or ICU admissions (p = 0.081). Subgroup analysis of patients receiving PoCUS within 1 h showed a significantly shorter LOS for both outpatient dispositions (p < 0.001) and general ward admissions (p < 0.001), with no effect on ICU admissions (p = 0.869). The presence or absence of CT did not alter these findings. Multivariable analysis indicated that patients who received PoCUS within one hour alone at index visit and admitted after an unscheduled return visit had lower initial ED costs (−9436.1 TWD, p < 0.001) and shorter ED LOS (−11.59 min, p < 0.001) than patients admitted directly at the index visit, with no significant increase in total resource utilization or adverse outcomes after return visits. Conclusions: PoCUS, especially when performed within one hour, was associated with reduced ED LOS and healthcare resource utilization for both outpatient dispositions and inpatient admissions without compromising patient safety or quality of care.

1. Introduction

Non-traumatic abdominal pain is a common and often complex presentation in the emergency department (ED), accounting for nearly 7% of all ED visits in the United States and representing more than 3 million patient encounters [1]. It encompasses a wide range of potential causes, from benign, self-limiting conditions to life-threatening emergencies such as bowel obstruction, mesenteric ischemia, or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm [2]. The diagnostic process for these patients is often challenging and time-consuming [3,4], which can lead to increased length of stay (LOS) and higher healthcare resource utilization. Traditionally, ED diagnostic workups for abdominal pain rely on clinical assessment, laboratory tests, and imaging studies [5]. While computed tomography (CT) remains a widely used tool due to its high diagnostic accuracy [6], its use in the ED can result in significant delays [7], increased radiation exposure [8], and higher costs. As the demand for emergency care continues to rise, optimizing patient flow and minimizing healthcare costs have become critical goals for improving ED efficiency and patient care.
Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as a valuable diagnostic tool in emergency medicine, offering rapid, non-invasive, real-time imaging directly at the bedside [9,10]. PoCUS is a bedside diagnostic tool that allows clinicians to acquire, interpret, and immediately integrate ultrasound imaging into patient care [10]. PoCUS has been successfully used to diagnose a variety of abdominal conditions, such as gallbladder disease [11], kidney stones [12], and ectopic pregnancy [13,14], with high sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, previous studies of the impact of PoCUS on length of stay (LOS) and costs have focused on specific diseases or complaints [15,16,17]. However, few have examined its effects on all patients presenting to the ED with non-traumatic abdominal pain as their main symptom. PoCUS enables immediate diagnostic assessments, facilitating timely clinical decision-making [15,17]. Nevertheless, the association between PoCUS execution time and patient flow, as well as the utilization of medical resources for different ED dispositions, remains unclear.
The benefits of PoCUS must be weighed against other imaging modalities. Computed tomography (CT) provides superior diagnostic accuracy [18] and has been shown to enhance surgical decision-making in cases of acute abdominal pain [19]. However, CT carries notable drawbacks, including higher costs and significant radiation exposure [17]. In contrast, PoCUS is more accessible and avoids radiation but is highly operator-dependent [20]. Its diagnostic performance varies with patient factors, operator expertise, and equipment quality [21].
The timing of PoCUS administration may play a crucial role in improving ED efficiency. Early PoCUS, particularly when performed within the first hour of patient presentation, was associated with shorter ED LOS and earlier surgical consultation, enhancing ED efficiency in patients with mild acute cholecystitis [22]. However, it remains unclear whether PoCUS can streamline ED management processes, such as reducing ED LOS and healthcare resource utilization, particularly in the context of non-traumatic abdominal pain, thereby potentially mitigating ED crowding.
This study aims to evaluate the association of early PoCUS, performed within 1 h of presentation, with ED patient flow, healthcare resource utilization, and quality of care in adults with non-traumatic abdominal pain.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

This retrospective cohort study used data from the electronic medical record (EMR) of a tertiary medical center in Taiwan with more than 160,000 ED visits annually, between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2023. The database is de-identified but contains a unique, encrypted personal identifier that allows researchers to link claims between ED and inpatient databases. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of China Medical University Hospital (CMUH113-REC2-008), and informed consent was waived. STROBE guidelines for observational studies were followed, and all elements in the checklist for cross-sectional studies are presented in content and structure [23].

2.2. Setting and Population

The patients were included if they (i) had an ED visit with no prior ED visit or hospitalization in the preceding three days; (ii) had non-traumatic abdominal pain as the chief complaint at triage; (iii) were adults aged 18 years or older. Patients were excluded if they were (i) younger than 18 years; (ii) had traumatic abdominal pain; (iii) were transferred from other EDs; or (iv) were discharged against medical advice from other clinics or hospitals. This study included 44,863 patients.
This tertiary center employed 42 emergency medicine specialists and 19 residents, with all attending physicians certified in emergency medicine. Since 2012, PoCUS has been a core component of ultrasound training in emergency medicine residency programs in Taiwan, with all residents undergoing hands-on assessments led by certified instructors from the Taiwan Society of Ultrasound in Medicine, each with over a decade of experience. In clinical settings, PoCUS was performed by residents or attending emergency physicians, all of whom regularly complete refresher courses to maintain and advance their skills.
The ED is equipped with one mobile GE Vivid iq, three mobile GE Venue units, three mobile GE LOGIQ™ e units, one fixed GE LOGIQ E9 XDclear 2.0 system, and one fixed GE LOGIQ S7 General Imaging system. All machines undergo routine maintenance every three months, and technical support is available immediately in case of malfunction. Ultrasound images can be uploaded wirelessly to the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) in real time. Reports can be typed directly into the Hospital Information System (HIS), ensuring efficient documentation and accessibility.
In this study, PoCUS was not limited to evaluating a specific organ or confirming a diagnosis. Instead, it was used to address the clinical questions that arise during patient care, often requiring a comprehensive assessment across multiple organs and systems based on the patient’s presenting symptoms. All physicians at this tertiary center had received standardized PoCUS training and could apply any protocol or technique they had learned to guide their clinical decisions. We studied patients who received PoCUS versus those who did not and analyzed data on the number of unscheduled return visits with admission in each group to compare ED LOS and costs.
An index ED visit was defined as one with no prior ED visit or hospitalization in the preceding three days. A return visit referred to any ED revisit occurring within 72 h of discharge from the index visit; for patients with multiple revisits in that period, only the first was included. The unit of analysis was the visit, allowing individual patients to contribute multiple index visits during the study period. We focused on early rather than late revisits, as these are generally more preventable and more responsive to hospital-based interventions [24]. The cohort was divided into two groups for comparison according to the presence or absence of PoCUS at the index visit. The PoCUS group was further divided into (1) PoCUS performed within 1 h and (2) PoCUS performed between 1 and 2 h after the ED visit, to investigate the time effect of PoCUS on ED resources and patient flow.

2.3. Variables

The EMR contains information on patient demographics, visit date and time, triage level, comorbidities, PoCUS, time of PoCUS, CT, ED disposition, ED length of stay (LOS), ED costs, admission costs, and hospital LOS. The Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scales system is a computerized, five-level system with acuity levels 1 to 5 indicating resuscitation, emergent, urgent, less urgent, and non-urgent, respectively [25].

2.4. Outcome Measures

The outcome measures were ED LOS, ED costs, inpatient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital LOS, and total ED and inpatient costs in TWD (New Taiwan dollar).
The ED LOS was defined as the period from the patient’s initial presentation to the ED, as documented by the triage nurse, to the patient’s discharge from the ED. ED LOS was calculated as the following five points: discharge from the ED, discharge from the observation room, admission to the general ward, admission to the ICU, and ED mortality. The hospital LOS of patients admitted to the general ward or ICU was documented as a secondary outcome to evaluate the prognosis of patients.

2.5. Data Analyses

Summary statistics are presented as means (with standard deviations). We examined bivariate associations using Student’s t-test and chi-square tests, as appropriate. The clinical outcomes (mortality and ICU admission) and resource use (LOS and cost) were analyzed by comparing the PoCUS group to the NO-PoCUS group, and the PoCUS within 1 h group to the NO-PoCUS group with and without CT, respectively. Missing data were limited to vital signs and anthropometric measures (i.e., weight, height, and BMI), which were excluded from calculations of means and SDs.
We used multivariable logistic and linear regression models to adjust for differences in patient mix. Potential confounding factors included age, gender, triage, BMI, and comorbidities. All odds ratios (ORs) and beta-coefficients are presented with 95% CIs. We performed all analyses using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). All p values are two-sided, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Population Distribution

A total of 44,863 index ED visits were entered in the core analyses (Figure 1). Among them, 17,819 (39.7%) patients received PoCUS, and 27,044 (60.3%) patients did not receive PoCUS. A total of 12,399 (69.6%) patients received PoCUS within one hour, and 3102 (17.4%) received PoCUS between one and two hours. A total of 13,670 (30.5%) patients received CT, and 31,193 (69.5%) patients did not receive CT.

3.2. Baseline Demographics

Table 1 provides the baseline demographics of patients who received PoCUS compared to those who did not. Compared with the No-PoCUS group, patients who received PoCUS were significantly younger, predominantly female, and more likely to be triaged at level 3. In terms of medical resource utilization characteristics, patients who received PoCUS had shorter ED and hospital LOS, fewer CTs performed, and fewer admissions, ICU admissions, and deceased patients. In addition, patients who received PoCUS were more frequently discharged with outpatient disposition (OPD). These results suggest that PoCUS is more likely to be used in lower disease severity.

3.3. Impact of PoCUS Timing on ED LOS and Costs

Table 2 illustrates the impact of PoCUS execution time on ED LOS and costs across different dispositions. Among the entire population and the populations with or without CT, the PoCUS group demonstrated significantly lower ED LOS compared to the No-PoCUS group, only in patients admitted to the ordinary ward. However, the PoCUS performed within the 1 h group demonstrated significantly lower ED LOS compared to the No-PoCUS group, both in patients discharged with OPD and admitted to the ordinary ward. In all patients admitted to the ICU and in the group with PoCUS performed between 1 and 2 h, there was no difference in ED LOS. These revealed that the impact of PoCUS on reducing ED LOS would be enhanced by PoCUS performed within 1 h. Nevertheless, the effect disappeared in patients admitted to the ICU.
Among the entire population and the population without CT, ED costs were significantly higher in the PoCUS group for patients discharged with OPD, regardless of when PoCUS was performed. However, among the population without CT, ED costs were significantly lower in the PoCUS group for patients admitted to the ordinary ward and in the PoCUS group performed within the 1 h group for both patients admitted to the ordinary ward and the ICU. Among the population with CT, ED costs were not different for patients admitted to the regular ward or ICU. These results indicate that PoCUS would increase ED costs in less severe diseases, whereas PoCUS would reduce ED costs in diseases requiring admission, and the effect could be enhanced by PoCUS performed within 1 h. However, the advantage disappeared with CT.

3.4. Quality of Care with POCUS

Table 3 compares quality-of-care metrics between patients admitted after their index visit (N = 7967) and those who received PoCUS within one hour alone at the index visit and admitted after an unscheduled return visit (N = 110). Except for lower first ED LOS and costs, there were also lower admission costs, total costs, hospital LOS, and ICU LOS in patients who received PoCUS within one hour alone at the index visit and admitted after an unscheduled return visit. However, there was no difference in ICU rate and mortality.
Table 4 outlines the quality of care with PoCUS after adjusting for age, gender, triage, BMI, and comorbidities. Patients who received PoCUS within one hour alone at index visit and admitted after an unscheduled return visit still had a lower first ED LOS (adjusted difference, −11.59, 95% CI, −14.20 to −8.98, p < 0.001), and lower first ED costs (adjusted difference, −9436.1 TWD, 95% CI, −11,542.9 to −7329.3, p < 0.001); however, no difference in total costs, hospital LOS, ICU admission rate, and mortality. This means that the PoCUS within one hour used fewer medical resources for the index visit without increasing the admission costs or the hospital LOS after an unscheduled return visit, representing no adverse impact on patient safety or quality of care.

4. Discussion

This study demonstrated that the association between PoCUS and reduced ED length of stay (LOS) was more pronounced when PoCUS was performed within the first hour. However, this effect was not observed in patients admitted to the ICU. The findings also suggested that PoCUS was associated with lower ED costs in conditions requiring admission, with the greatest reduction seen when performed within the first hour; however, this advantage was no longer evident when CT was used. Patients who underwent PoCUS within the first hour (without CT) during their initial visit and were later admitted after an unscheduled return visit had lower initial ED costs and shorter ED LOS, without a significant increase in overall resource utilization or adverse outcomes upon return. These results are consistent with previous research [26,27], reinforcing PoCUS as a valuable risk stratification tool in emergency medicine for expediting decision-making and optimizing resource allocation.

4.1. PoCUS Utilization Patterns

PoCUS was utilized in approximately 40% of ED visits in this study, with higher usage among younger patients, females, and those triaged at level three. This pattern suggests that PoCUS was primarily employed for non-traumatic abdominal pain of moderate severity rather than for critically ill cases, where clinicians more commonly relied on laboratory tests and CT scans for definitive diagnosis. However, PoCUS has several important applications in critically ill patients, including the assessment of abdominal organ function, differentiation of shock states, and identification of septic sources [28]. The higher utilization among younger patients may reflect the relative simplicity of abdominal pain diagnoses in this population, making PoCUS a more reliable aid in clinical decision-making while minimizing CT radiation exposure. A stepwise approach beginning with PoCUS before proceeding to CT is recommended [29]. Additionally, multiorgan PoCUS has demonstrated utility in the assessment and management of geriatric patients [30]. In women with acute pelvic pain, PoCUS serves as the primary imaging modality, offering high accuracy in detecting or ruling out urgent gynecologic conditions requiring immediate surgical intervention [31], which may explain its predominant use in female patients.
PoCUS use was also associated with improved patient flow in lower-acuity cases, including higher rates of outpatient disposition, lower ICU admission rates, and reduced inpatient mortality. These findings support its role as an effective screening tool for managing less severe presentations, potentially reducing the need for CT scans and associated radiation exposure. However, barriers to broader adoption persist, including a lack of remuneration, a high workload, and skepticism among some general practitioners regarding its diagnostic accuracy and clinical value [32,33]. Despite these challenges, studies suggest that physicians who integrate PoCUS into their practice are often more proactive, using it to obtain immediate diagnostic insights and expedite clinical decision-making, contributing to shorter ED length of stay [34]. Enhancing PoCUS education, particularly for its use in critically ill patients with abdominal pain and in the geriatric population, may further support its integration into routine ED practice.

4.2. The Association of PoCUS with ED Patient Flow and Resource Utilization

This study found a significant association between PoCUS use and reduced ED LOS, particularly when performed within the first hour of patient presentation. The most notable reductions were observed in outpatient dispositions and those admitted to the general ward. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies, where PoCUS was associated with shorter ED LOS in specific conditions such as small bowel obstruction [17], early pregnancy [35], diverticulitis [16], and acute cholecystitis [22]. However, no significant difference in ED LOS was observed among patients admitted to the ICU. These cases often involve greater complexity, requiring additional imaging, laboratory tests, and interventions, and waiting for consultation and ICU bed availability. While PoCUS remains an important tool in the management of critically ill patients, its impact varies depending on the clinical context. One study reported that POCUS was considered to have the potential to reduce or prevent mortality and morbidity in 45% of cases where it was not used, particularly in cardiopulmonary assessments [36]. However, its effectiveness is closely related to the operator’s experience and skill level, with inadequate training increasing the risk of misdiagnoses, highlighting the need for structured education and competency assessment [37]. In summary, PoCUS demonstrates substantial utility in evaluating abdominal pain in the ED and is associated with improvements in patient flow. Its diagnostic value is influenced by operator expertise and patient characteristics, underscoring the importance of appropriate training and integration into a comprehensive clinical assessment to optimize ED resource utilization.

4.3. Quality of Care and Patient Safety

Errors in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, follow-up care, and information provision often contribute to unscheduled ED returns. Diagnostic errors, in particular, show a strong correlation with adverse outcomes post-discharge, including elevated mortality rates and ICU admissions [38,39,40]. While the reliability of traditional metrics like 72 h returns as indicators of care quality or safety has been debated, a more specific measure—such as 72 h returns requiring admission—demonstrates a clearer link to patient outcomes [41,42,43]. Additionally, shorter ED LOS [44] and insufficient evaluation and treatment [45] at the index visit have been suggested to be risk factors for increased unscheduled return visits. In this study, patients with the shortest ED LOS and lowest costs (less assessment and treatment) at the index visit in the PoCUS within 1 h (without CT) group who were admitted after an unscheduled return visit still did not have significant difference in hospital costs, LOS (total and ICU), and ICU admission or mortality after the return visit compared with direct admission at the index visit. These findings suggest a strong association between PoCUS use and effective risk stratification, supporting safe initial discharge decisions. Even in cases of return visits requiring admission, the quality of care remained consistent, aligning with the safety of PoCUS-guided decision-making.
These findings highlight PoCUS as an excellent risk-stratification tool that supports safe initial discharge decisions. Even when patients returned and required admission, their quality of care remained uncompromised, reinforcing the safety of PoCUS-guided decision-making.
Concerns that PoCUS might be linked to missed diagnoses or delayed interventions [46] are not supported by this study. The admission after an unscheduled return visit may be related to disease progression [47]. These findings highlight PoCUS as a valuable component of risk stratification, enhancing decision-making without increasing patient risk.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations

This study analyzes the association between PoCUS performed within the first hour and patient flow, resource utilization, and the quality of PoCUS and care at the index ED visit. Quality is indirectly assessed by evaluating the days and costs of admissions after an unscheduled return visit. In addition, a large sample size and a long period were utilized to ensure reliability. Despite these strengths, this study has several limitations. First, as a retrospective cohort study, it is susceptible to selection bias and potential unmeasured confounders. While adjustments were made for various factors, residual confounding may still influence the observed associations. Second, the study was conducted at a single tertiary medical center in Taiwan, which may limit the generalizability of the results to other healthcare settings with varying PoCUS training, resources, and patient populations. Third, physician-specific factors, such as variations in PoCUS expertise and interpretation, were not accounted for and could influence outcomes. Furthermore, the effect of different training levels on diagnostic accuracy has not been evaluated. However, PoCUS examinations performed by residents were supervised by attending physicians, which may have reduced the impact of differences in training on the results. Fourth, this study did not focus on a specific organ or system, nor did it aim to confirm a diagnosis. Therefore, the specificity and sensitivity of PoCUS for making specific diagnoses were not investigated. Fifth, part of this study was conducted during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, when ED visits declined significantly and infection control measures, such as universal precautions and enhanced disinfection, disrupted normal workflows. As a result, the timing of PoCUS may have deviated slightly from standard practice. However, the clinical approach to non-traumatic abdominal pain remained unchanged. Notably, 17,819 patients underwent PoCUS examination, of whom only 34 had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. No complications were observed in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients who underwent PoCUS. Finally, while the study did not assess PoCUS indications or accuracy, its goal was to evaluate PoCUSwith outcomes in non-traumatic abdominal pain without restricting indications. Outcomes such as hospital LOS, admission costs, ICU admission rates, and mortality post-return visit were used as indirect measures of decision-making qualityto PoCUS use.

5. Conclusions

This study provided robust evidence that integrating PoCUS in the ED, particularly within the first hour, was associated with reduced ED LOS and lower admission rates, without compromising the quality of care or patient safety. These findings highlight the role of PoCUS as an effective risk stratification tool for patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain, facilitating clinical decision-making, supporting safe initial discharge, and optimizing patient flow and resource allocation in emergency care. Future research should validate these results across diverse healthcare settings and examine its effectiveness in various diagnostic groups within the ED.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.-W.H. and S.-H.W.; Data curation, T.-C.W. and S.-H.W.; Formal analysis, F.-W.H. and S.-H.W.; Investigation, T.-C.W.; Methodology, F.-W.H., W.-C.L. and S.-H.W.; Resources, T.-F.C. and W.-J.L.; Validation, W.-C.L., T.-F.C. and S.-H.W.; Writing—original draft, S.-Y.H. and S.-H.W.; Writing—review and editing, W.-C.L. and S.-H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board of China Medical University Hospital (CMUH113-REC2-008). Ethical code approval date: 4 February 2024.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was waived. The trials were conducted under local laws and institutional requirements.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the author, Shih-Hao Wu, without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers and editors for their valuable suggestions and con-tributions to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

No other author has reported a potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Abbreviations

PoCUS: point-of-care ultrasound; LOS: length of stay; ED: emergency department; ICU: intensive care unit; CT: computed tomography; OPD: out-patient department; BMI: body mass index; TWD: new Taiwan dollars; URV: unscheduled return visit.

References

  1. Kocher, K.E.; Meurer, W.J.; Fazel, R.; Scott, P.A.; Krumholz, H.M.; Nallamothu, B.K. National trends in use of computed tomography in the emergency department. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2011, 58, 452–462.e453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Karcioglu, O.; Yenocak, S.; Hosseinzadeh, M.; Sezgin, S.B. Abdominal Pain: Essential Diagnosis and Management in Acute Medicine; Bentham Science Publishers: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brachet-Contul, R.; Cinti, L.; Nardi, M.J.; Condurro, S.; Millo, P.; Marrelli, D. Non-specific Abdominal Pain. In Emergency Laparoscopic Surgery in the Elderly and Frail Patient; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mazzei, M.A.; Guerrini, S.; Cioffi Squitieri, N.; Cagini, L.; Macarini, L.; Coppolino, F.; Giganti, M.; Volterrani, L. The role of US examination in the management of acute abdomen. Crit. Ultrasound J. 2013, 5, S6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Marincek, B. Nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: Acute abdominal pain: Diagnostic strategies. Eur. Radiol. 2002, 12, 2136–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gans, S.L.; Pols, M.A.; Stoker, J.; Boermeester, M.A.; Group, E.S. Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain. Dig. Surg. 2015, 32, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mills, A.M.; Baumann, B.M.; Chen, E.H.; Zhang, K.-Y.; Glaspey, L.J.; Hollander, J.E.; Pines, J.M. The Impact of Crowding on Time until Abdominal CT Interpretation in Emergency Department Patients with Acute Abdominal Pain. Postgrad. Med. 2010, 122, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Schwartz, D.T. Counter-Point: Are we really ordering too many CT scans? West. J. Emerg. Med. 2008, 9, 120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Spampinato, M.D.; Luppi, F.; Cristofaro, E.; Benedetto, M.; Cianci, A.; Bachechi, T.; Ghirardi, C.; Perna, B.; Guarino, M.; Passaro, A.; et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Point of Care UltraSound (POCUS) in clinical practice: A retrospective, emergency department based study. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2024, 52, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Diaz-Gomez, J.L.; Mayo, P.H.; Koenig, S.J. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 1593–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, X.; Li, K.; Kou, S.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Z. The accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in the detection of gallbladder disease: A meta-analysis. Acad. Radiol. 2024, 31, 1336–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, W.; Goh, S.; Lee, B.; Juan, S.; Asinas-Tan, M.; Lim, B. Renal point-of-care ultrasound performed by ED staff with limited training and 30-day outcomes in patients with renal colic. Can. J. Emerg. Med. 2024, 26, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van Oyen, A.; Tamirian, R.; Tay, E. 30 Point-of-Care Ultrasound by Emergency Physicians for the Diagnosis of Ectopic Pregnancies: How Good Are We? Ann. Emerg. Med. 2024, 84, S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Recker, F.; Weber, E.; Strizek, B.; Gembruch, U.; Westerway, S.C.; Dietrich, C.F. Point-of-care ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2021, 303, 871–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wang, P.-H.; Chen, J.-Y.; Ling, D.-A.; Lee, A.-F.; Ko, Y.-C.; Lien, W.-C.; Huang, C.-H. Earlier point-of-care ultrasound, shorter length of stay in patients with acute flank pain. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2022, 30, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Barton, M.F.; Barton, K.M.; Goldsmith, A.J.; Gottlieb, M.; Harris, C.; Chottiner, M.; Barton, B.L.; Selame, L.; Baugh, C.W.; Duggan, N.M. POCUS-first in acute diverticulitis: Quantifying cost savings, length-of-stay reduction. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2025, 88, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Brower, C.H.; Baugh, C.W.; Shokoohi, H.; Liteplo, A.S.; Duggan, N.; Havens, J.; Askari, R.; Rehani, M.M.; Kapur, T.; Goldsmith, A.J. Point-of-care ultrasound-first for the evaluation of small bowel obstruction: National cost savings, length of stay reduction, and preventable radiation exposure. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2022, 29, 824–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lau, H.T.; Liu, W.; Lam, V.; Pang, T. Early routine (erCT) versus selective computed tomography (sCT) for acute abdominal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Int. J. Surg. 2022, 101, 106622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Juvonen, P.; Lehtimäki, T.; Eskelinen, M.; Ilves, I.; Vanninen, R.; Miettinen, P.; Paajanen, H. The need for surgery in acute abdominal pain: A randomized study of abdominal computed tomography. Vivo 2014, 28, 305–309. [Google Scholar]
  20. Andersen, C.A.; Holden, S.; Vela, J.; Rathleff, M.S.; Jensen, M.B. Point-of-care ultrasound in general practice: A systematic review. Ann. Fam. Med. 2019, 17, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Di Serafino, M.; Iacobellis, F.; Schillirò, M.L.; D’auria, D.; Verde, F.; Grimaldi, D.; Dell’Aversano Orabona, G.; Caruso, M.; Sabatino, V.; Rinaldo, C. Common and uncommon errors in emergency ultrasound. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, C.-T.; Wang, L.-W.; Lin, S.-Y.; Chen, T.-Y.; Ho, Y.-J.; Wang, P.-H.; Liu, K.-L.; Wu, Y.-M.; Wang, H.-P.; Lien, W.-C. Impact of a POCUS-first versus CT-first approach on emergency department length of stay and time to surgical consultation in patients with acute cholecystitis: A retrospective study. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2025, 33, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cuschieri, S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2019, 13, S31–S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Graham, K.L.; Auerbach, A.D.; Schnipper, J.L.; Flanders, S.A.; Kim, C.S.; Robinson, E.J.; Ruhnke, G.W.; Thomas, L.R.; Kripalani, S.; Vasilevskis, E.E. Preventability of early versus late hospital readmissions in a national cohort of general medicine patients. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 168, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ng, C.-J.; Yen, Z.-S.; Tsai, J.C.-H.; Chen, L.C.; Lin, S.J.; Sang, Y.Y.; Chen, J.-C.; Group, T.N.W. Validation of the Taiwan triage and acuity scale: A new computerised five-level triage system. Emerg. Med. J. 2011, 28, 1026–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Alfoti, B.O.O.; Alfoti, F.O.O.; Alothman, S.T.H.; Al-Dhafiri, T.M.A.; Al-Harbi, N.H.M.; Al-Khalidi, A.M.; Alzahrany, N.D.B.; Abutalib, F.M.; Almojam, S.A.; Al-Hayani, S.A. Utilization of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in Emergency and Critical Care: Role of Nursing for Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficiency-Systematic Review. Egypt. J. Chem. 2024, 67, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Manasievska, M. Combined Approach with Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine: Methodological Aspects and Clinical Impact. 2021. Available online: https://iris.unito.it/bitstream/2318/2017275/2/Thesis_M.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2025).
  28. Boling, B.; Solis, A. Point-of-care ultrasonography in the critical care setting: Abdominal POCUS. AACN Adv. Crit. Care 2023, 34, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Di Saverio, S.; Birindelli, A.; Kelly, M.D.; Catena, F.; Weber, D.G.; Sartelli, M.; Sugrue, M.; De Moya, M.; Gomes, C.A.; Bhangu, A. WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. World J. Emerg. Surg. 2016, 11, 34. [Google Scholar]
  30. Reinoso-Párraga, P.P.; González-Montalvo, J.I.; Menéndez-Colino, R.; Perkisas, S.; Rivera-Deras, I.; Garmendia-Prieto, B.; Arain, S.J.; Tung-Chen, Y.; Vilches-Moraga, A. Usefulness of point of care ultrasound in older adults: A multicentre study across different geriatric care settings in Spain and the United Kingdom. Age Ageing 2024, 53, afae165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cortellaro, F.; Perani, C.; Guarnieri, L.; Ferrari, L.; Cazzaniga, M.; Maconi, G.; Wu, M.A.; Aseni, P. Point-of-care ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. In Operative Techniques and Recent Advances in Acute Care and Emergency Surgery; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 383–401. [Google Scholar]
  32. Andersen, C.A.; Brodersen, J.B.; Graumann, O.; Davidsen, A.S.; Jensen, M.B. Factors affecting point-of-care ultrasound implementation in general practice: A survey in Danish primary care clinics. BMJ Open 2023, 13, e077702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Khan, M.A.; Abu-Zidan, F.M. Point-of-care ultrasound for the acute abdomen in the primary health care. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  34. Smith, C.J.; Barron, K.; Shope, R.J.; Beam, E.; Piro, K. Motivations, barriers, and professional engagement: A multisite qualitative study of internal medicine faculty’s experiences learning and teaching point-of-care ultrasound. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Beals, T.; Naraghi, L.; Grossestreuer, A.; Schafer, J.; Balk, D.; Hoffmann, B. Point of care ultrasound is associated with decreased ED length of stay for symptomatic early pregnancy. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 1165–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Goldsmith, A.J.; Shokoohi, H.; Loesche, M.; Patel, R.C.; Kimberly, H.; Liteplo, A. Point-of-care Ultrasound in Morbidity and Mortality Cases in Emergency Medicine: Who Benefits the Most? West J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 21, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Blanco, P.; Volpicelli, G. Common pitfalls in point-of-care ultrasound: A practical guide for emergency and critical care physicians. Crit. Ultrasound J. 2016, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nuñez, S.; Hexdall, A.; Aguirre-Jaime, A. Unscheduled returns to the emergency department: An outcome of medical errors? Qual. Saf. Health Care 2006, 15, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sauvin, G.; Freund, Y.; Saïdi, K.; Riou, B.; Hausfater, P. Correction: Unscheduled return visits to the emergency department: Consequences for triage. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2013, 20, E3–E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Verelst, S.; Pierloot, S.; Desruelles, D.; Gillet, J.-B.; Bergs, J. Short-term Unscheduled Return Visits of Adult Patients to the Emergency Department. J. Emerg. Med. 2014, 47, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pham, J.C.; Kirsch, T.D.; Hill, P.M.; DeRuggerio, K.; Hoffmann, B. Seventy-two-hour returns may not be a good indicator of safety in the emergency department: A national study. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2011, 18, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sabbatini, A.K.; Kocher, K.E.; Basu, A.; Hsia, R.Y. In-Hospital Outcomes and Costs Among Patients Hospitalized During a Return Visit to the Emergency Department. JAMA 2016, 315, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tsai, C.-L.; Ling, D.-A.; Lu, T.-C.; Lin, J.C.-C.; Huang, C.-H.; Fang, C.-C. Inpatient outcomes following a return visit to the emergency department: A nationwide cohort study. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 22, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, R.-F.; Cheng, K.-C.; Lin, Y.-Y.; Chang, I.-C.; Tsai, C.-H. Predicting unscheduled emergency department return visits among older adults: Population-based retrospective study. JMIR Med. Inform. 2021, 9, e22491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rising, K.L.; Padrez, K.A.; O’Brien, M.; Hollander, J.E.; Carr, B.G.; Shea, J.A. Return visits to the emergency department: The patient perspective. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2015, 65, 377–386.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Brau, F.; Papin, M.; Batard, E.; Abet, E.; Frampas, E.; Le Thuaut, A.; Montassier, E.; Le Bastard, Q.; Le Conte, P. Impact of emergency physician performed ultrasound in the evaluation of adult patients with acute abdominal pain: A prospective randomized bicentric trial. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2024, 32, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Boendermaker, A.E.; Coolsma, C.W.; Emous, M.; Ter Avest, E. Efficacy of scheduled return visits for emergency department patients with non-specific abdominal pain. Emerg. Med. J. 2018, 35, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Diagnostics 15 01580 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study population selection.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study population selection.
Diagnostics 15 01580 g001
Table 1. Demographics of the study population.
Table 1. Demographics of the study population.
PoCUS, N = 17,819No PoCUS, N = 27,044p
Age42.91 ± 17.8045.42 ± 19.56<0.001
Sex <0.001
Male6497 (36.46)10,905 (40.32)
Female11,322 (63.54)16,139 (59.68)
BMI24.11 ± 24.9824.16 ± 37.700.855
Triage <0.001
1104 (0.58)340 (1.26)
21684 (9.45)3555 (13.15)
315,750 (88.39)22,464 (83.06)
4279 (1.57)634 (2.34)
52 (0.01)51 (0.19)
Heart rate87.43 ± 17.2991.55 ± 18.37
Systolic blood pressure130.2 ± 23.93128.3 ± 23.46
Diastolic blood pressure80.67 ± 14.6179.39 ± 14.43
Body temperature36.64 ± 0.6836.73 ± 0.88
Respiratory rate19.47 ± 1.5619.58 ± 1.60
CT5086 (28.54)8584 (31.74)<0.001
Discharged with OPD13,791 (77.39)18,456 (68.24)<0.001
Admission to ward2406 (13.50)5324 (19.69)<0.001
Admission to ICU69 (0.39)168 (0.62)<0.001
Expire in ED1 (0.01)20 (0.07)0.001
ED LOS5.11 ± 7.126.24 ± 9.52<0.001
Hospital LOS7.55 ± 10.909.40 ± 12.88<0.001
PoCUS: point-of-care ultrasound; BMI: body mass index; CT: computer tomography; OPD: outpatient disposition; ICU: intensive care unit; ED: emergency department; LOS: length of stay.
Table 2. The association between PoCUS execution time and ED LOS and costs across different patient dispositions.
Table 2. The association between PoCUS execution time and ED LOS and costs across different patient dispositions.
Whole Population, N = 44,863
No PoCUSPoCUSpNo PoCUSPoCUS Within 1 hpNo PoCUSPoCUS Between 1 and 2 hp
OPD, N = 32,24718,45613,791 18,4569743 18,4562403
LOS in ED (h)3.80 ± 5.773.74 ± 4.600.2823.80 ± 5.773.33 ± 3.92<0.0013.80 ± 5.773.82 ± 4.380.849
Costs in ED (NT$)4367.9 ± 4216.24918.9 ± 3931.7<0.0014367.9 ± 4216.24657.2 ± 3738.8<0.0014367.9 ± 4216.25157.2 ± 4240.9<0.001
Admission to ward (no ICU),
N = 7730		53242406 53241542 5324437
LOS in ED (h)16.13 ± 14.5614.78 ± 13.03<0.00116.13 ± 14.5613.28 ± 11.76<0.00116.13 ± 14.5616.26 ± 13.750.857
Costs in ED (NT$)13,221.1 ± 9812.813,064.6 ± 9515.90.5121322.1 ± 9812.812,820.6 ± 9169.80.13713,221.1 ± 9812.813,571.4 ± 10,002.00.473
Admission to ICU,
N = 237		16869 16843 16815
LOS in ED (h)12.94 ± 13.2616.40 ± 16.010.08712.94 ± 13.2613.32 ± 14.030.86912.94 ± 13.2615.59 ± 15.640.466
Costs in ED (NT$)33,873.2 ± 36,233.533,246.1 ± 30,747.50.89933,873.2 ± 36,233.526,144.8 ± 19,990.30.06433,873.2 ± 36,233.532,197.0 ± 30,001.00.862
Without CT, N = 31,193
No POCUSPOCUSpNo POCUSPOCUS within 1 hpNo POCUSPOCUS above 1 hp
OPD, N = 26,00814,85711,151 14,8577865 14,8571987
LOS in ED (h)3.16 ± 5.273.12 ± 4.090.5773.16 ± 5.272.79 ± 3.43<0.0013.16 ± 5.273.14 ± 3.650.901
Costs in ED (NT$)2906.6 ± 2864.23576.8 ± 2675.2<0.0012906.6 ± 2864.23320.9 ± 2431.2<0.0012906.6 ± 2864.23899.5 ± 3034.0<0.001
Admission to ward (no ICU),
N = 2179		1546633 1546357 1546119
LOS in ED (h)14.66 ± 14.6612.91 ± 12.110.00414.66 ± 14.6610.52 ± 10.26<0.00114.66 ± 14.6614.89 ± 13.090.866
Costs in ED (NT$)8303.4 ± 7860.97092.4 ± 6242.9<0.0018303.4 ± 7860.96469.9 ± 5682.0<0.0018303.4 ± 7860.97397.9 ± 7184.80.223
Admission to ICU,
N = 41		338 335 331
LOS in ED (h)7.84 ± 10.1012.09 ± 10.960.2997.84 ± 10.106.90 ± 5.390.8417.84 ± 10.1025.00 ± 0.00-
Costs in ED (NT$)30,935.5 ± 37,952.330,410.1 ± 57,536.80.97430,935.5 ± 37,952.38796.6 ± 4089.20.00230,935.5 ± 37,952.33977.0 ± 0.00-
With CT, N = 13,670
No POCUSPOCUSpNo POCUSPOCUS within 1 hpNo POCUSPOCUS above 1 hp
OPD, N = 623935992640 35991878 3599416
LOS in ED (h)6.48 ± 6.856.35 ± 5.620.4256.48 ± 6.855.62 ± 4.89<0.0016.48 ± 6.857.06 ± 5.870.060
Costs in ED (NT$)10,400.3 ± 3476.810,587.9 ± 3282.90.02910,400.3 ± 3476.810,253.4 ± 2995.30.10310,400.3 ± 3476.811,164.4 ± 4037.2<0.001
Admission to ward (no ICU),
N = 5551		37781773 37781185 3778318
LOS in ED (h)16.73 ± 14.4815.44 ± 13.280.00116.73 ± 14.4814.11 ± 12.05<0.00116.73 ± 14.4816.77 ± 13.970.962
Costs in ED (NT$)15,233.5 ± 9822.415,196.9 ± 9576.50.89615,233.5 ± 9822.414,733.8 ± 9160.10.10715,233.5 ± 9822.415,881.6 ± 9935.70.259
Admission to ICU,
N = 196		13561 13538 13514
LOS in ED (h)14.19 ± 13.6716.96 ± 16.540.21914.19 ± 13.6714.16 ± 14.630.99214.19 ± 13.6714.91 ± 16.010.852
Costs in ED (NT$)34,591.3 ± 35,910.633,618.0 ± 26,153.80.83134,591.3 ± 35,910.628,427.4 ± 20,144.10.17334,591.3 ± 35,910.634,212.7 ± 30,060.90.969
Student’s t-test, and chi-square tests, as appropriate; PoCUS: point of care ultrasonography; TWD: new Taiwan dollar; CT: computer tomography; OPD: outpatient disposition; ICU: intensive care unit; ED: emergency department; LOS: length of stay.
Table 3. Quality of care in POCUS only group (unadjusted).
Table 3. Quality of care in POCUS only group (unadjusted).
Admission After Index Visit,
N = 7967		PoCUS Within 1 h Alone at Index Visit and Admitted After an Unscheduled Return Visit, N = 110p-Value
LOS in ED 1st (h)15.66 ± 14.123.25 ± 3.02<0.001
LOS in ED 2nd (h)N/A13.05 ± 11.48-
Total LOS in ED15.66 ± 14.1216.30 ± 11.830.571
ED 1st cost (NT$)13,782.8 ± 11,808.33166.6 ± 1560.2<0.001
ED 2nd cost (NT$)N/A10,889.3 ± 8212.6-
Admission cost (NT$)100,911 ± 261,45651,195.6 ± 43,312.5<0.001
Total cost114,618 ± 263,74365,251.5 ± 45,280.1<0.001
Hospital LOS (day)8.91 ± 12.455.89 ± 5.36<0.001
ICU237 (2.97)2 (1.82)0.773
ICU LOS (day)7.67 ± 10.342.00 ± 0.00<0.001
Expired0(0.00)0 (0.00)-
Expired after admission306 (3.84)1 (0.91)0.131
PoCUS: point-of-care ultrasound; N/A: not applicable; TWD: new Taiwan dollar; CT: computer tomography; OPD: outpatient disposition; ICU: intensive care unit; ED: emergency department; LOS: length of stay.
Table 4. Quality of care in POCUS only group (adjusted).
Table 4. Quality of care in POCUS only group (adjusted).
Outcome Measures,
Point Estimate (95% CI)		Admission After Index Visit N = 7967PoCUS Within 1 h Alone at Index Visit and Admitted After an Unscheduled Return Visit, N = 110p-Value
LOS in 1st ED (h)Ref.−11.59 (−14.20 to −8.98)<0.001
Total ED LOS (h)Ref.1.47 (−1.15 to 4.09)0.271
1st ED costs (NT$)Ref.−9436.1 (−11,542.9 to −7329.3)<0.001
Total ED costs (NT$)Ref.1458.6 (−655.6 to 3572.8)0.176
Total cost (including admission costs) (NT$)Ref.−32,807.8 (−81,456.9 to 15,841.3)0.186
ICU, ORRef.0.88 (0.21 to 3.68)0.855
Expired, ORRef.--
Expired after admission, ORRef.0.37 (0.05 to 2.72)0.331
Hospital LOS (day)Ref.−1.77 (−4.03 to 0.50)0.127
Adjusted for age, gender, triage, BMI, and comorbidities. CI: confidence interval; ED: emergency department; TWD: New Taiwan Dollars; LOS: length of stay; h: hour; OR: odds ratio; ICU: intensive care unit.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hung, S.-Y.; Huang, F.-W.; Lien, W.-C.; Chiu, T.-F.; Wong, T.-C.; Lin, W.-J.; Wu, S.-H. Point-of-Care Ultrasound Within One Hour Associated with ED Flow and Resource Use in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 1580. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15131580

AMA Style

Hung S-Y, Huang F-W, Lien W-C, Chiu T-F, Wong T-C, Lin W-J, Wu S-H. Point-of-Care Ultrasound Within One Hour Associated with ED Flow and Resource Use in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study. Diagnostics. 2025; 15(13):1580. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15131580

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hung, Sheng-Yao, Fen-Wei Huang, Wan-Ching Lien, Te-Fa Chiu, Tse-Chyuan Wong, Wei-Jun Lin, and Shih-Hao Wu. 2025. "Point-of-Care Ultrasound Within One Hour Associated with ED Flow and Resource Use in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study" Diagnostics 15, no. 13: 1580. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15131580

APA Style

Hung, S.-Y., Huang, F.-W., Lien, W.-C., Chiu, T.-F., Wong, T.-C., Lin, W.-J., & Wu, S.-H. (2025). Point-of-Care Ultrasound Within One Hour Associated with ED Flow and Resource Use in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study. Diagnostics, 15(13), 1580. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15131580

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop