Introduction Emergency department point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can identify lower extremity venous thrombosis (LEVT) with a published accuracy is 85–90%. The aim of this study was to compare the patterns of LEVT with protocol results and determine the clinical impact of the study results. Methods Patterns of superficial venous thrombosis(SVT) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were collated from positive venous duplex ultrasound (VDU) studies. Each pattern was mapped to the potential findings by the described POCUS protocols. Analysis of the literature was used to identify the potential clinical impact of the findings and the functional efficacy of each strategy and a numerical result was developed. Results One hundred six studies were positive for DVT (42), SVT (44), or both (20) on VDU. Patterns for DVT (single or multiple levels and unilateral or bilateral) and SVT (great saphenous vein above and/or below knee or small saphenous vein in single, multiple or bilateral and juxta-junctional) were noted. The patterns covered by the “two-area” protocol showed DVT = 80% and SVT = 38%, and by “three-point compression” DVT = 74% and SVT = 0%. Particular areas not covered included proximal disease (iliac and vena cava) and calf DVT and SVT in all areas except juxta-junctional. The potential impact for DVT is high, whereas for SVT it is moderate to low. The functional efficacy of the “two-area” protocol (5.9) exceeds the “three-point compression” strategy (3.7) but falls short of the “gold standard” VDU (10). Conclusion Pattern analysis of venous thrombosis identifies weakness in POCUS strategies; the clinical implications allow for an assignment of the functional efficacy of each study. Knowledge of these findings should inform emergency room POCUS strategies.

Access to a body of published research is important to the development of research and to inform quality patient care. Measures of such activities are determined by bibliometric analysis of publication databases. This project aims to identify the scope of such publications in vascular ultrasound and its implications for the ultrasound professionals. Major databases were surveyed to identify the range of publications in “vascular ultrasound” from 2016 to 2018. The topics, sources, and relevance of the publications were noted along with recognized impact factors and other parameters. A list of target journals was created in radiology, ultrasound, and clinical vascular spheres. These journals were assessed for bibliometric parameters, total number of articles, and articles specific to vascular ultrasound. Web of Science was used over a 3-year period to identify 4136 articles (1421, 1384, and 1326 in each of 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively). This search returned 414 pages; of these, 2-page analysis revealed 15% were relevant to vascular ultrasound practice. Of the 21 “highly cited” articles, one was related to carotid ultrasound and one was aortic practice guidelines. Of the 31 targeted journals (radiology, 5; ultrasound, 16; vascular surgery, 7; vascular medicine, 3), 3873 articles were published; 123 (3.2%) were relevant to vascular ultrasound. The maximum vascular ultrasound content in any one journal was 8%. The activities were guidelines, 11; cases, 7; and mixed other, 105. The topics were carotid, 30; arterial, 17; aorta, 7; venous, 16; education, 12; and other, 41. The impact factor was 0.36 to 16.8 (median = 2.1). None of the targeted journals nor the major databases have much content in vascular ultrasound. The choice of journal for publication should be determined by potential audience rather than the journal itself. As a tool for an environment scan of trends in vascular ultrasound, no journal serves well.

The Quality Improvement and Research Committee of the Society for Vascular Ultrasound has recognized the Journal for Vascular Ultrasound to promote quality improvement, research and scholarly initiatives of the Society. An understanding of the content and character of its published articles and its status amongst journals on vascular ultrasound will be useful to this mandate. This project aims to identify the scope of Journal for Vascular Ultrasound and its implications for the Society membership. Journal for Vascular Ultrasound Volumes 40 to 42 (2016-2018) were reviewed to identify the number of articles published, the type of scholarly work, and the vascular ultrasound domains represented. The findings were compared with major databases and a targeted list of journals with vascular ultrasound content. In addition, bibliometric parameters specific to Journal for Vascular Ultrasound were identified and compared with other journals. The Journal for Vascular Ultrasound published 71 articles over the 3 years; 100% were vascular ultrasound topics. The most frequent activities were 35 cases, 20 research, and 5 guidelines. The topics were 19 venous, 18 carotid, 7 arterial, 2 aorta, 1 education, and 10 unusual findings, and 4 other studies. In the 312 targeted journals, 4792 articles were published in 2018; 135 were relevant to vascular ultrasound. The maximum vascular ultrasound content in any one journal, other than Journal for Vascular Ultrasound, was 20% (range = 0-20, median = 8%). The impact of Journal for Vascular Ultrasound, by the H-score of 11 and SJR of 0.12, ranks the Journal for Vascular Ultrasound in the lowest 10% of surveyed journals. Of the citable Journal for Vascular Ultrasound articles, only 6% were cited in bibliometric analysis. The Journal for Vascular Ultrasound has the highest percentage of content of vascular ultrasound of targeted journals. Case reports represent the bulk of Journal for Vascular Ultrasound published work. Citations and impact remain low. None of the targeted journals have very much content in vascular ultrasound. These findings suggest a variety of challenges and opportunities for the Society.

Conclusions: Limited ultrasound studies for peripheral arterial disease can establish the presence of disease but are inadequate to guide CDM. Caution should be exercised in the use and interpretation of such protocols.

No abstract