Point-of-care abdominal ultrasound (US), which is performed by clinicians at bedside, is increasingly being used to evaluate clinical manifestations, to facilitate accurate diagnoses, and to assist procedures in emergency and critical care. Methods for the assessment of acute abdominal pain with point-of-care US must be developed according to accumulated evidence in each abdominal region. To detect hemoperitoneum, the methodology of a focused assessment with sonography for a trauma examination may also be an option in non-trauma patients. For the assessment of systemic hypoperfusion and renal dysfunction, point-of-care renal Doppler US may be an option. Utilization of point-of-care US is also considered in order to detect abdominal and pelvic lesions. It is particularly useful for the detection of gallstones and the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Point-of-case US is justified as the initial imaging modality for the diagnosis of ureterolithiasis and the assessment of pyelonephritis. It can be used with great accuracy to detect the presence of abdominal aortic aneurysm in symptomatic patients. It may also be useful for the diagnoses of digestive tract diseases such as appendicitis, small bowel obstruction, and gastrointestinal perforation. Additionally, point-of-care US can be a modality for assisting procedures. Paracentesis under US guidance has been shown to improve patient care. US appears to be a potential modality to verify the placement of the gastric tube. The estimation of the amount of urine with bladder US can lead to an increased success rate in small children. US-guided catheterization with transrectal pressure appears to be useful in some male patients in whom standard urethral catheterization is difficult. Although a greater accumulation of evidences is needed in some fields, point-of-care abdominal US is a promising modality to improve patient care in emergency and critical care settings.

In the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) era, point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) has attracted increased attention. Prospective studies on LUS for the assessment of pneumonia in adult patients were extensively carried out for more than 10 years before this era. None of these prospective studies attempted to differentiate bacterial and viral pneumonia in adult patients using LUS. The majority of studies considered the LUS examination to be positive if sonographic consolidations or multiple B-lines were observed. Significant differences existed in the accuracy of these studies. Some studies revealed that LUS showed superior sensitivity to chest X-ray. These results indicate that point-of-care LUS has the potential to be an initial imaging modality for the diagnosis of pneumonia. The LUS diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units is more challenging in comparison with the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia in emergency departments due to the limited access to the mechanically ventilated patients and the high prevalence of atelectasis. However, several studies have demonstrated that the combination of LUS findings with other clinical markers improved the diagnostic accuracy. In the COVID-19 era, many case reports and small observational studies on COVID-19 pneumonia have been published in a short period. Multiple B-lines were the most common and consistent finding in COVID-19 pneumonia. Serial LUS showed the deterioration of the disease. The knowledge and ideas on the application of LUS in the management of pneumonia that are expected to accumulate in the COVID-19 era may provide us with clues regarding more appropriate management.

The recent advances in lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of cardiogenic pulmonary edema are outstanding; however, the mechanism of vertical artifacts known as B-lines used for the diagnosis has not yet been fully elucidated. The theory of “acoustic trap” is useful when considering the generation of vertical artifacts. Basic research in several studies supports the theory. Published studies with pilot experiments indicate that clarification of the relationship between the length and intensity of vertical artifacts and physical or acoustic composition of sources may be useful for differentiating cardiogenic pulmonary edema from lung diseases. There is no international consensus with regard to the optimal settings of ultrasound machines even though their contribution to the configuration of vertical artifacts is evident. In the clinical setting, the configuration is detrimentally affected by the use of spatial compound imaging, the placement of the focal point at a deep level, and the use of multiple focus. Simple educational materials using a glass microscope slide also show the non-negligible impact of the ultrasound machine settings on the morphology of vertical artifacts.

Ultrasound (US) carried out and interpreted by clinicians at the bedside is now called point‐of‐care US (POCUS). Clinical studies on POCUS have been carried out based on the ideas of “creation”, “extraction”, and “combination”. “Creation” refers to findings for the upper airway and lung being obtained at the bedside. “Extraction” refers to findings suitable for POCUS being extracted from comprehensive US, including echocardiography, abdominal US, and whole‐leg US. “Combination” refers to these POCUS applications being combined for the comprehensive assessment of patients with trauma, shock, or dyspnea. Emergency and critical care physicians have many opportunities to encounter trauma or non‐trauma patients with shock, dyspnea, or both. Furthermore, the scope of POCUS includes many diseases and injuries that present with both shock and dyspnea. Therefore, we propose a basic POCUS framework based on the systematic airway, breathing, and circulation approach for the initial management of shock and dyspnea in adult patients. In this article, we update and review each application of POCUS and their combination in this framework. Furthermore, we propose the practical usage of the framework based on clinical presentations to improve the management of shock and dyspnea.