Skip to main content
The Ultrasound Journal
Download PDF

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in emergency care settings

The Ultrasound Journal volume 13, Article number: 16 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The use of ultrasound (US) in emergency departments (ED) has become widespread. This includes both traditional US scans performed by radiology departments as well as point-of-care US (POCUS) performed by bedside clinicians. There has been significant interest in better understanding the appropriate use of imaging and where opportunities to enhance cost-effectiveness may exist. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify published evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of US in the ED and to grade the quality of that evidence.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were: (1) economic evaluations, (2) studied the clinical use of ultrasound, and (3) took place in an emergency care setting. Included studies were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

Results

We identified 631 potentially relevant articles. Of these, 35 studies met all inclusion criteria and were eligible for data abstraction. In general, studies were supportive of the use of US. In particular, 11 studies formed a strong consensus that US enhanced cost-effectiveness in the investigation of pediatric appendicitis and 6 studies supported enhancements in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Across the studies, weaknesses in methodology and reporting were common, such as lack of sensitivity analyses and inconsistent reporting of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Conclusions

The body of existing evidence, though limited, generally demonstrates that the inclusion of US in emergency care settings allows for more cost-effective care. The most definitive evidence for improvements in cost-effectiveness surround the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis, followed by the evaluation of abdominal trauma. POCUS outside of trauma has had mixed results.

Background

Ultrasound (US) is well established as a safe and effective imaging modality for the rapid diagnosis and management of emergency conditions. At the bedside, it also improves success and patient safety during invasive procedures [1,2,3,4,5]. In the wake of technological advances and the increasing availability of imaging technologies, there has been considerable expansion of the use of clinical US—including both radiology-performed consultative studies and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) studies [6,7,8,9,10,11]. A number of initiatives have been promoted to encourage stewardship of imaging resources and the delivery of high-value care. These include the American College of Radiology’s “Appropriateness Criteria” which assists referring physicians in the selection of the most efficacious and medically-appropriate imaging [12]; the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s “Choosing Wisely” initiative that advocates for use of modalities that are evidence-supported, non-duplicative, harm-free, and truly necessary [13]; and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s “Ultrasound First” campaign that promotes the practice of ultrasound for its safety, effectiveness, and affordability [14].

There is a common assumption that US is cost-effective in emergency care settings as it is diagnostically valuable, rapid, and less expensive than other imaging modalities like computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [15]. However, it is unclear whether the published data either support or refute this assertion.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a tool that combines economic and health outcome data to produce standardized ratios of costs and benefits. The outputs of CEAs allow for comparison of diagnostics that vary by both price and clinical utility, and generate important data to support decisions related to health policy and investment. The validity and reliability of CEAs are highly dependent on the rigor with which they are conducted. In 2013, health economists developed consensus-based guidelines on the conduct and reporting of health economic evaluations, called the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist [16].

We present a systematic review of the published evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of US in emergency care settings. Our aim is to characterize the existing knowledge regarding the costs and benefits of emergency US, to examine the quality of cost-effectiveness studies using the CHEERS checklist, and to provide guidance for future research efforts.

Methods

Search strategy

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17]. The review was conducted without date or language restrictions in five major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane). The search terms used are found in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Search terms

Full size image

Selection of studies and data abstraction

All studies were collated and screened for eligibility through Covidence (www.covidence.org), an online platform for systematic review. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were: (1) economic evaluations that assessed costs and outcomes of comparative strategies; (2) studied the clinical use of US; and (3) took place in an emergency care setting. Two reviewers (BL, NR) with experience in reading, writing and reviewing economic evaluations independently assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in a blinded fashion. Studies progressed to a full-text review if both reviewers agreed on the relevance based on the research question. Studies then underwent full text reviews for eligibility by each reviewer. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The following information was extracted from each of the studies in the review: country, year of publication, intervention, comparator, time horizon (the time over which the costs and effect are measured), discount rate (the rate at which future costs and benefits are discounted), perspective (which costs are included or excluded), health outcome, sensitivity analyses (an assessment of the level of uncertainty in the modeling), and findings.

Quality assessment

Two reviewers undertook critical appraisal of the included studies using the CHEERS checklist, which comprises 24 items determined by expert consensus to be of importance when reporting economic evaluations of health interventions [16]. The CHEERS checklist was developed to increase transparency and consistency in the reporting of economic evaluations of health interventions, and ultimately lead to better policy, program, and management decisions. A lower score means readers cannot fully understand the modeling assumptions and, therefore, must question the validity and reliability of the presented results. The checklist can also serve to highlight critical gaps in study design, for example when study authors have not described performing a sensitivity analysis to generate confidence intervals it is likely that this step was overlooked.

Results

Overview of included studies

The electronic searches identified 631 potentially relevant articles following the removal of duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts for eligibility, 83 articles remained for full text screening. Of these studies, 35 studies met all inclusion criteria and were eligible for data abstraction. Included studies ranged in publication date from 1996 to 2019, 20 were published in 2014 or later. Studies were excluded in the full-text phase for the following reasons: 39 were not economic evaluations or CEAs, seven were not relevant to the emergency care setting, and two were conference abstracts only. Details are further illustrated in our PRISMA Flow Diagram (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Description of included studies

The 35 included studies covered a broad range of applications within emergency US. The most comprehensive body of evidence surrounds the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis. This is followed by trauma, echocardiography, obstetric/gynecologic (OB/GYN), biliary, venous, and renal applications. A small group of studies also evaluate general US processes and impact in the emergency department (ED). Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 present the principal findings of each study and our grade of the evidence using the CHEERS score.

Table 1 Evaluation of pediatric appendicitis
Full size table
Table 2 Evaluation of trauma
Full size table
Table 3 Evaluation of renal, biliary, and venous pathology
Full size table
Table 4 Evaluation of OB/GYN pathology
Full size table
Table 5 Echocardiography
Full size table
Table 6 Miscellaneous studies
Full size table

Evaluation of pediatric appendicitis

We identified 11 studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of US in the evaluation of acute appendicitis [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The impetus to avoid radiation in the pediatric population has sparked substantial research interest in this area. Universally, these studies found that using US as the initial study to evaluate pediatric patients for appendicitis decreased radiation exposure, overall costs, and length of stay. These results held despite significant rates of inconclusive initial scans. The use of clinical decision rules and US quality templates further increased cost-effectiveness. One study did not find a significant change because of poor adherence to the US first protocol [27].

Evaluation of trauma

Six studies examined US in the setting of acute trauma [29,30,31,32,33,34]. They found that US decreases time to the operating room for patients with injury, decreases the use of CT scans in children, decreases length of stay, and decreases invasive procedures such as peritoneal lavage in adults. One study specifically examined the cardiac portion of the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam in blunt trauma patients, finding it was only cost-effective in the setting of hypotension [34].

Evaluation of renal, biliary, and venous pathology

Six studies examined US in the setting of renal, biliary, or venous pathology [35,36,37,38,39,40]. The use of US to evaluate acute flank pain had mixed findings. One study suggested no efficiency gains with US use due to high-numbers of subsequent CT orders, and another found that using US as the initial radiology modality decreases costs and radiation exposure despite a 20% subsequent use of CT to further evaluate patients [39, 40]. Two studies assessed the evaluation of biliary pathology. One study showed that in the evaluation of right-upper quadrant pain, initial POCUS by ED providers followed by radiology department scans if needed was the most cost-effective approach, and a second study described large costs associated with additional imaging after ED POCUS significant for acute cholecystitis [35, 37]. In the evaluation of venous thromboembolism, protocols using clinical screening tools, D-dimer testing, and US to decrease CT usage were the most cost-effective [36, 38].

Evaluation of OB/GYN pathology

Three studies assessed US in the evaluation of emergency OB/GYN complaints [41,42,43]. One study showed that an initial approach of transvaginal instead of transabdominal US is cost-saving in all patients other than those in the second or third trimester of pregnancy [41]. Another study described benefits and drawbacks of POCUS as the initial test in a rule-out ectopic pregnancy scenario showing higher rates of detection of ectopic pregnancy at the first visit, but with an overall increase in number of US studies performed and the potential of other missed pathology [42]. Finally, a third study found that at high-volume sites 24 h a day US coverage to assess for OB/GYN pathology can avert admissions [43].

Echocardiography

Four studies assessed echocardiography in the emergency care setting [44,45,46,47]. Three of the studies focused on decreasing hospitalization using US to provide earlier risk-stratification of patients with acute chest pain or acute cardiac issues [44, 45, 47]. One study assessed the cost-effectiveness of a variety of emergency department modalities to evaluate syncope in older patients, finding that CT head and echocardiography where among the most expensive and least revealing tests that are commonly ordered [46].

Miscellaneous studies

Finally, we identified a collection of studies evaluating the downstream impact of emergency US on resource utilization [48,49,50,51,52]. One study found that patients who had POCUS as opposed to radiology scans were at increased risk of having further confirmatory studies ordered compared to those who had the initial US done by radiology [50]. Another small observational study of POCUS in the ED produced a contrary finding, noting that a bedside US performed by an emergency physician could lead to decreased testing afterwards [52].

Quality assessment of included studies

While we tailored our search criteria to identify formal attempts at CEA, considerable variability remained in the quality of the economic evaluations conducted in the studies we identified. Most studies received about half the possible points on the CHEERS checklist. Inadequacy in the performance or the reporting of study perspectives, preference-based health outcomes (patient-reported preferences for different health states used to calculate metrics such as quality-adjusted life-years), modeling assumptions, transparency of costs, characterization of uncertainty, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios contributed to the majority of downgrading. For example, only nine of the 35 studies presented any characterization of the uncertainty surrounding their cost-effectiveness results, only seven presented an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and only 11 explicitly stated the economic perspective from which they were calculating costs.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to broadly evaluate the cost-effectiveness of US in the emergency care setting across all applications, including both radiology-performed and POCUS exams. The body of literature identified through this systematic review is fairly consistent in supporting the increased cost-effectiveness of integrating US in emergency care settings across a variety of applications. Healthcare systems have begun to focus on value-based approaches throughout the hospital including the ED [53], and the demonstration of cost-effectiveness of US has the potential to lead to an expansion of its role in ED patient care.

Of the studies identified in this systematic review, those pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of US in the ED evaluation for pediatric appendicitis were the most plentiful and consistent in demonstration of cost-effectiveness gains, particularly when used in conjunction with clinical decision rules [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Three of the studies identified in this review were amongst the most rigorous we identified using CHEERS methodology [20, 23, 26]. When combined with the decreased radiation exposure of this approach, these studies add to the case for the widespread adoption of an US first approach in the ED evaluation of pediatric appendicitis.

Use of POCUS evaluation of trauma is ubiquitous and recommended by the American College of Surgeons [54]. The six studies we identified demonstrated consistent cost-effectiveness gains when POCUS is used in the evaluation of trauma [29,30,31,32,33,34]. These studies, however, generally had poor cost-effectiveness methodology and reporting, with the exception of the investigation by Hall et al. which concluded that in blunt trauma patients the cardiac component of the FAST exam is only cost-effective when a patient is hypotensive [34].

Cost-effectiveness of consultative ED US was demonstrated across a variety of applications, including echocardiography, appendicitis, venous thromboembolism, renal, and obstetric. This is consistent with a prior narrative review that demonstrated increased cost-efficiency of US across the spectrum of clinical medicine [55].

The studies identified in this review generally support the cost-effectiveness of POCUS, although some reach the alternative conclusion. The aforementioned studies evaluating POCUS in trauma consistently demonstrated cost savings. Additionally, multiple studies demonstrated potential cost savings in POCUS for biliary and OB/GYN applications [35, 37, 42]. However, one study failed to identify cost savings in POCUS for patients with suspected kidney stones and another demonstrated additional downstream imaging after initial POCUS [39, 50]. Contrarily, a separate study identified in this review demonstrated that POCUS leads to decreased downstream testing and can lower direct and indirect costs associated with diagnostic workups [52]. Given the large number of supporting studies publication bias should be considered, but an assessment of this falls outside of the scope of our manuscript.

None of the studies included in this systematic review specifically address the widely-inferred cost-effectiveness of POCUS due to increased efficiency (US scans are both performed and interpreted at the bedside in real time by a clinician who can immediately integrate the results into patient management) and patient throughput, or the decreased adverse iatrogenic events due to US guidance of procedures [56,57,58,59]. This highlights a gap that could be addressed by future research.

This systematic review sought to identify all relevant articles by searching five databases without language or date restrictions; however, it remains possible that pertinent articles were missed. Multiple independent reviewers were utilized at each step of the study selection and data abstraction process to minimize the likelihood of excluding relevant studies. Additionally, the mixed quality of methodology and reporting surrounding the economic evaluations conducted in these studies is notable. Most authors did not frame their analysis as a formal cost-effectiveness study, which may have led to the lack of robust methodology. Both past and recent reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in radiology have highlighted the need for standardized approaches [60, 61]. This limited utilization of established health economics modeling and reporting standards calls into question the reliability of results and makes comparability across studies difficult.

Conclusions

In summary, the body of existing evidence, though limited, is generally supportive of the cost-effectiveness of US in the emergency care setting. The strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in the ED exists in the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis and of abdominal trauma. Further study, using established best-practice standards in the methodology of cost-effectiveness analysis, is needed to definitively establish the cost-effectiveness of consultative and POCUS across a variety of applications in emergency care settings.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

CEA:

Cost-effectiveness analysis

ED:

Emergency Department

FAST:

Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma

POCUS:

Point-of-Care Ultrasound

US:

Ultrasound

CT:

Computed Tomography

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

CHEERS:

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards

OB/GYN:

Obstetric/Gynecologic

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

References

  1. Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (2008) American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine consensus report on potential bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound: executive summary. J Ultrasound Med 27:503–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bierig SM, Jones A (2009) Accuracy and cost comparison of ultrasound versus alternative imaging modalities, including CT, MR, PET, and angiography. J Diagn Med Sonogr 25:138–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moore CL, Copel JA (2011) Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med 364:749–757

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shekelle PG, Wachter RM, Pronovost PJ et al (2013) Making health care safer II: an updated critical analysis of the evidence for patient safety practices. Evid Rep Technol Assess 211:1–945

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M et al (2012) International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med 38(7):1105–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith-bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E et al (2012) Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996–2010. JAMA 307(22):2400–2409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith-bindman R, Kwan ML, Marlow EC et al (2019) Trends in use of medical imaging in US health care systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000–2016. JAMA 322(9):843–856

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore CL, Molina AA, Lin H (2006) Ultrasonography in community emergency departments in the United States: access to ultrasonography performed by consultants and status of emergency physician-performed ultrasonography. Ann Emerg Med 47(2):147–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanders J, Noble VE, Raja AS et al (2015) Access to and use of point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med 16(5):747–752

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Leschyna M, Hatam E, Britton S et al (2019) Current state of point-of-care ultrasound usage in Canadian emergency departments. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4246

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chamberlain MC, Reid SR, Madhok M (2011) Utilization of emergency ultrasound in pediatric emergency departments. Pediatr Emerg Care 27(7):628–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American College of Radiology (2020) ACR Appropriateness Criteria. https://acsearch.acr.org/list. Accessed Feb 15 2020.

  13. American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation (2020) Choosing Wisely Initiative. https://www.choosingwisely.org. Accessed Feb 15 2020.

  14. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (2020) Ultrasound First. http://www.ultrasoundfirst.org. Accessed Feb 15 2020.

  15. Sistrom CL, McKay NL (2005) Costs, charges, and revenues for hospital diagnostic imaging procedures: differences by modality and hospital characteristics. J Am Coll Radiol 2(6):511–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29(2):117–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151(4):W65-94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Axelrod DA, Sonnad SS, Hirschl RB (2000) An economic evaluation of sonographic examination of children with suspected appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg 35(8):1236–1241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peña BM, Taylor GA, Fishman SJ, Mandl KD (2000) Costs and effectiveness of ultrasonography and limited computed tomography for diagnosing appendicitis in children. Pediatrics 106(4):672–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pershad J, Waters TM, Langham MR, Li T, Huang EY (2015) Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic approaches to suspected appendicitis in children. J Am Coll Surg. 220(4):738–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van atta AJ, Baskin HJ, Maves CK, et al (2015) Implementing an ultrasound-based protocol for diagnosing appendicitis while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Pediatr Radiol 45(5):678–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wagenaar AE, Tashiro J, Wang B et al (2015) Protocol for suspected pediatric appendicitis limits computed tomography utilization. J Surg Res 199(1):153–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gregory S, Kuntz K, Sainfort F, Kharbanda A (2016) Cost-effectiveness of integrating a clinical decision rule and staged imaging protocol for diagnosis of appendicitis. Value Health 19(1):28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Anderson KT, Bartz-kurycki M, Austin MT et al (2017) Approaching zero: implications of a computed tomography reduction program for pediatric appendicitis evaluation. J Pediatr Surg 52(12):1909–1915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Imler D, Keller C, Sivasankar S et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound as the initial imaging modality for pediatric and young adult patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 24(5):569–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kharbanda AB, Christensen EW, Dudley NC et al (2018) Economic analysis of diagnostic imaging in pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 25(7):785–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kobayashi E, Johnson B, Goetz K, Scanlan J, Weinsheimer R (2018) Does the implementation of a pediatric appendicitis pathway promoting ultrasound work outside of a children’s hospital? Am J Surg 215(5):917–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nordin AB, Sales S, Nielsen JW, Adler B, Bates DG, Kenney B (2018) Standardized ultrasound templates for diagnosing appendicitis reduce annual imaging costs. J Surg Res 221:77–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Branney SW, Moore EE, Cantrill SV, Burch JM, Terry SJ (1997) Ultrasound based key clinical pathway reduces the use of hospital resources for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 42(6):1086–1090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Partrick DA, Bensard DD, Moore EE, Terry SJ, Karrer FM (1998) Ultrasound is an effective triage tool to evaluate blunt abdominal trauma in the pediatric population. J Trauma 45(1):57–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Arrillaga A, Graham R, York JW, Miller RS (1999) Increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the evaluation of the blunt abdominal trauma patient with the use of ultrasound. Am Surg 65(1):31–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frezza EE, Ferone T, Martin M (1999) Surgical residents and ultrasound technician accuracy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in trauma. Am Surg 65(3):289–291

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Melniker LA, Leibner E, Mckenney MG, Lopez P, Briggs WM, Mancuso CA (2006) Randomized controlled clinical trial of point-of-care, limited ultrasonography for trauma in the emergency department: the first sonography outcomes assessment program trial. Ann Emerg Med 48(3):227–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hall MK, Omer T, Moore CL, Taylor RA (2016) Cost-effectiveness of the cardiac component of the focused assessment of sonography in trauma examination in blunt trauma. Acad Emerg Med 23(4):415–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Durston W, Carl ML, Guerra W et al (2001) Comparison of quality and cost-effectiveness in the evaluation of symptomatic cholelithiasis with different approaches to ultrasound availability in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 19(4):260–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Goodacre S, Stevenson M, Wailoo A, Sampson F, Sutton AJ, Thomas S (2006) How should we diagnose suspected deep-vein thrombosis? QJM 99(6):377–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Young N, Kinsella S, Raio CC et al (2010) Economic impact of additional radiographic studies after registered diagnostic medical sonographer (RDMS)-certified emergency physician-performed identification of cholecystitis by ultrasound. J Emerg Med 38(5):645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ward MJ, Sodickson A, Diercks DB, Raja AS (2011) Cost-effectiveness of lower extremity compression ultrasound in emergency department patients with a high risk of hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism. Acad Emerg Med 18(1):22–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Melnikow J, Xing G, Cox G et al (2016) Cost analysis of the STONE randomized trial: can health care costs be reduced one test at a time? Med Care 54(4):337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sternberg KM, Littenberg B (2017) Trends in imaging use for the evaluation and followup of kidney stone disease: a single center experience. J Urol 198(2):383–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hazlett KS, Wagner A, Guidi C, Victoria D, Weir S, Wise S (1996) Cost effectiveness of pelvic sonogram in the emergency room: endovaginal vs. transabdominal examination. Emergency Radiol 3(5):231–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Durston WE, Carl ML, Guerra W, Eaton A, Ackerson LM (2000) Ultrasound availability in the evaluation of ectopic pregnancy in the ED: comparison of quality and cost-effectiveness with different approaches. Am J Emerg Med 18(4):408–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Al Wattar BH, Frank M, Fage E, Gupta P (2014) Use of ultrasound in emergency gynaecology. J Obstet Gynaecol 34(2):172–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wyrick JJ, Kalvaitis S, Mcconnell KJ, Rinkevich D, Kaul S, Wei K (2008) Cost-efficiency of myocardial contrast echocardiography in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain of suspected cardiac origin and a nondiagnostic electrocardiogram. Am J Cardiol 102(6):649–652

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Jasani G, Papas M, Patel AJ et al (2018) Immediate stress echocardiography for low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department: a prospective observational cohort study. J Emerg Med 54(2):156–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Baugh CW, Sun BC, Syncope Risk Stratification Study Group (2019) Variation in diagnostic testing for older patients with syncope in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 37(5):810–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gc VS, Alshurafa M, Sturgess DJ et al (2019) Cost-minimisation analysis alongside a pilot study of early tissue doppler evaluation of diastolic dysfunction in emergency department non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (TEDDy-NSTEACS). BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023920

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Mcgahan JP, Cronan MS, Richards JR, Jones CD (2000) Comparison of US utilization and technical costs before and after establishment of 24-hour in-house coverage for US examinations. Radiology 216(3):788–791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Morrow DS, Broder J (2015) Cost-effective, reusable, leak-resistant ultrasound-guided vascular access trainer. J Emerg Med 49(3):313–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Allen B, Carrol LV, Hughes DR, Hemingway J, Duszak R, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Downstream imaging utilization after emergency department ultrasound interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists: a medicare claims-based Study. J Am Coll Radiol 14(4):475–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Huang Z, Vintzileos W, Gordish-dressman H, Bandarkar A, Reilly BK (2017) Pediatric peritonsillar abscess: outcomes and cost savings from using transcervical ultrasound. Laryngoscope 127(8):1924–1929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Van Schaik GWW, Van Schaik KD, Murphy MC (2019) Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in a community emergency department: an analysis of decision making and cost savings associated with POCUS. J Ultrasound Med 38(8):2133–2140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Farmer SA, Brown NA (2017) Value-based approaches for emergency care in a new era. Ann Emerg Med 69(6):684–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. American College of Surgeons (2018) Advanced trauma life support: student course manual, 10th edn. Illinois, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bierig SM, Jones A (2009) Accuracy and cost comparison of ultrasound versus alternative imaging modalities, including CT, MR, PET, and angiography. J Diagn Med Sonography 25(3):38–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Blaivas M, Harwood RA, Lambert MJ (1999) Decreasing length of stay with emergency ultrasound examination of the gallbladder. Acad Emerg Med 6:1020–1023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Burgher SW, Tandy TK, Dawdy MR (1998) Transvaginal ultrasonography by emergency physicians decreases patient time in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 5:802–807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Leung J, Duffy M, Finckh A (2006) Real-time ultrasonographically guided internal jugular vein catheterization in the emergency department increases success rates and reduces complications: a randomized, prospective study. Ann Emerg Med 48:540–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG (1996) Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 24:2053–2058

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhou A, Yousem DM, Alvin MD (2018) Cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology: a systematic review. J Am Coll Radiol 15(11):1536–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.06.018 (Epub 2018 Jul 26)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Otero HJ, Rybicki FJ, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ (2008) Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving? Radiology 249(3):917–925. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493080237

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No funding to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Highland Hospital-Alameda Health System, 1411 E. 31st Street, QIC 22123, Oakland, CA, 94602, USA

    Brian Lentz

  2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Tiffany Fong, Randall Rhyne & Nicholas Risko

Authors
  1. Brian Lentz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiffany Fong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Randall Rhyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicholas Risko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NR conceived the project. NR & BL undertook critical appraisal of the included studies using the CHEERS checklist. All authors performed analysis of the scored studies and contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Risko.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lentz, B., Fong, T., Rhyne, R. et al. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in emergency care settings. Ultrasound J 13, 16 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-021-00216-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-021-00216-8

Keywords