Nikolai Schnittke, Frances M Russell, Michael Gottlieb, Samuel H F Lam, David O Kessler, Lynn P Roppolo, Stephanie C Demasi, Patricia Henwood, Yiju Teresa Liu, Jennifer R Marin, Jason Nomura, Joseph R Pare
{"title":"护理点超声研究报告标准(SPUR):一个改进的德尔福,以开发一个报告护理点超声研究的框架。","authors":"Nikolai Schnittke, Frances M Russell, Michael Gottlieb, Samuel H F Lam, David O Kessler, Lynn P Roppolo, Stephanie C Demasi, Patricia Henwood, Yiju Teresa Liu, Jennifer R Marin, Jason Nomura, Joseph R Pare","doi":"10.1111/acem.70069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a bedside diagnostic modality that depends on technical, operator-specific, patient-specific, and clinical context factors. Existing research reporting guidelines do not explicitly address these considerations as they pertain to replicability and generalizability of POCUS studies. The objective of this study was to create a framework to assist investigators, reviewers, and clinicians in reporting and evaluating the quality of POCUS research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a two-stage consensus-building approach. First, a steering committee reviewed available literature and existing guidelines to generate a novel list of items and explanatory subitems relevant to POCUS research. We vetted the list by soliciting public comments from individuals affiliated with POCUS-oriented professional organizations. Second, a consensus panel of experts, defined as POCUS researchers with a minimum of three first or senior author, POCUS-relevant publications completed a three-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of the panel. Items that did not reach consensus after three rounds were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty POCUS experts participated in the study, completing all three survey rounds. The panel reached consensus to include 19/21 items and 62/119 subitems. The resulting instrument addresses variables related to technical hardware and settings (three items), specifics of the POCUS examination (two items), participant characteristics (two items), operator characteristics (five items), data analysis and interpretation (three items), and study-specific considerations (four items).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Standards for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR) can aid researchers, reviewers, and clinicians in the design, dissemination, and critical appraisal of POCUS research.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standards for Point-of-care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR): A modified Delphi to develop a framework for reporting point-of-care ultrasound research.\",\"authors\":\"Nikolai Schnittke, Frances M Russell, Michael Gottlieb, Samuel H F Lam, David O Kessler, Lynn P Roppolo, Stephanie C Demasi, Patricia Henwood, Yiju Teresa Liu, Jennifer R Marin, Jason Nomura, Joseph R Pare\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.70069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a bedside diagnostic modality that depends on technical, operator-specific, patient-specific, and clinical context factors. Existing research reporting guidelines do not explicitly address these considerations as they pertain to replicability and generalizability of POCUS studies. The objective of this study was to create a framework to assist investigators, reviewers, and clinicians in reporting and evaluating the quality of POCUS research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a two-stage consensus-building approach. First, a steering committee reviewed available literature and existing guidelines to generate a novel list of items and explanatory subitems relevant to POCUS research. We vetted the list by soliciting public comments from individuals affiliated with POCUS-oriented professional organizations. Second, a consensus panel of experts, defined as POCUS researchers with a minimum of three first or senior author, POCUS-relevant publications completed a three-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of the panel. Items that did not reach consensus after three rounds were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty POCUS experts participated in the study, completing all three survey rounds. The panel reached consensus to include 19/21 items and 62/119 subitems. The resulting instrument addresses variables related to technical hardware and settings (three items), specifics of the POCUS examination (two items), participant characteristics (two items), operator characteristics (five items), data analysis and interpretation (three items), and study-specific considerations (four items).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Standards for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR) can aid researchers, reviewers, and clinicians in the design, dissemination, and critical appraisal of POCUS research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70069","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Standards for Point-of-care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR): A modified Delphi to develop a framework for reporting point-of-care ultrasound research.
Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a bedside diagnostic modality that depends on technical, operator-specific, patient-specific, and clinical context factors. Existing research reporting guidelines do not explicitly address these considerations as they pertain to replicability and generalizability of POCUS studies. The objective of this study was to create a framework to assist investigators, reviewers, and clinicians in reporting and evaluating the quality of POCUS research.
Methods: We applied a two-stage consensus-building approach. First, a steering committee reviewed available literature and existing guidelines to generate a novel list of items and explanatory subitems relevant to POCUS research. We vetted the list by soliciting public comments from individuals affiliated with POCUS-oriented professional organizations. Second, a consensus panel of experts, defined as POCUS researchers with a minimum of three first or senior author, POCUS-relevant publications completed a three-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of the panel. Items that did not reach consensus after three rounds were excluded.
Results: Twenty POCUS experts participated in the study, completing all three survey rounds. The panel reached consensus to include 19/21 items and 62/119 subitems. The resulting instrument addresses variables related to technical hardware and settings (three items), specifics of the POCUS examination (two items), participant characteristics (two items), operator characteristics (five items), data analysis and interpretation (three items), and study-specific considerations (four items).
Conclusions: The Standards for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR) can aid researchers, reviewers, and clinicians in the design, dissemination, and critical appraisal of POCUS research.
期刊介绍:
Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine.
The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more.
Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.