ArticleBalkan medical journal2017
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Role of Bedside Lung Ultrasonography in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department.
Article in Balkan medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations for Lung Ultrasound in Internal Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Guideline
- Association between Mid-Term Functionality and Clinical Severity in Patients Hospitalized for Pulmonary Embolism.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of Bedside Combined Cardiopulmonary Ultrasound on Etiological Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Respiratory Failure in Critically Ill Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020Article
- Polish recommendations for lung ultrasound in internal medicine (POLLUS-IM).Journal of ultrasonography · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the existence of detailed consensus guidelines, challenges remain regarding efficient, appropriate, and safe imaging methods for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism.
aimsTo investigate the role of the wedge sign, B-lines, and pleural effusion seen on bedside lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. STUDY
designDiagnostic accuracy study.
methodsDuring the first evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, bedside lung ultrasound was performed, and the B-lines, wedge sign, and pleural effusion were investigated. Computed tomography angiography was used as a confirmatory test and was compared with the lung ultrasound findings.
resultsPulmonary embolism was detected in 38 (38%) patients. In the comparison of bedside lung ultrasound results, statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of the B-lines and wedge sign (p=0.005 and p>0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in terms of effusion (p=0.234). Comparison of these findings with computed tomography angiography of the chest showed weak negative correlations between the groups in terms of B-lines (r=-0297) and a moderately positive correlation in terms of the wedge sign (r=0.523). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of lung ultrasound findings alone were low. In the logistic regression analysis, the wedge sign (p>0.01, OR=69.45, 95% CI=6.94-695.17) and B-line (p=0.033, OR=1.96, 95% CI=0.41-8.40) were found to be effective in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
conclusionAlthough the role of lung ultrasound has been increasing in the management of critically ill patients, its value is limited and cannot replace the gold standard tests in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.