Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29850969›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2018

Brief cardiovascular imaging with pocket-size ultrasound devices improves the accuracy of the initial assessment of suspected pulmonary embolism.

Dominika Filipiak-Strzecka, Jarosław D Kasprzak, Piotr Lipiec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reliability of spectral Doppler in handheld ultrasonographic device.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dominika Filipiak-StrzeckaDepartment of Cardiology, Bieganski Hospital, Medical University of Lodz, Kniaziewicza 1/5, 91-347, Lodz, Poland. dominika.filipiak@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5760-1243
Jarosław D KasprzakDepartment of Cardiology, Bieganski Hospital, Medical University of Lodz, Kniaziewicza 1/5, 91-347, Lodz, Poland.
Piotr LipiecDepartment of Cardiology, Bieganski Hospital, Medical University of Lodz, Kniaziewicza 1/5, 91-347, Lodz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism onset is frequently neglected due to the non-specific character of its symptoms. Pocket-size imaging devices (PSID) present an opportunity to implement imaging diagnostics into conventional physical examination. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that supplementation of the initial bedside assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) with four-point compression venous ultrasonography (CUS) and right ventricular size assessment with the use of PSID equipped with dual probe could positively influence the accuracy of clinical predictions. A single-centre, prospective analysis was conducted on 100 patients (47 men, mean age 68 ± 13 years) with suspected PE. Clinical assessment on the basis of Wells and revised Geneva score and physical examination were supplemented with CUS and RV measurements by PSID. The mean time of PSID scanning was 4.9 ± 0.8 min and was universally accepted by the patients. Fifteen patients had deep venous thrombosis and RV enlargement was observed in 59 patients. PE was confirmed in 24 patients. If the both CUS was positive and RV enlarged, the specificity was 100% and sensitivity 54%, ROC AUC 0.771 [95% CI 0.68-0.85]. The Wells rule within our study population had the specificity of 86% and sensitivity of 67%, ROC AUC 0.776 (95% CI 0.681-0.853, p < 0.0001). Similar values calculated for the revised Geneva score were as follows: specificity 58% and sensitivity 63%, ROC AUC 0.664 (95% CI 0.563-0.756, p = 0.0104). Supplementing the revised Geneva score with additional criteria of CUS result and RV measurement resulted in significant improvement of diagnostic accuracy. The difference between ROC AUCs was 0.199 (95% Cl 0.0893-0.308, p = 0.0004). Similar modification of Wells score increased ROC AUC by 0.133 (95% CI 0.0443-0.223, p = 0.0034). Despite the well-acknowledged role of the PE clinical risk assessment scores the diagnostic process may benefit from the addition of basic bedside ultrasonographic techniques.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsCardiac Imaging TechniquesComputers, HandheldDecision Support TechniquesDiagnostic Techniques, CardiovascularFemaleHeart VentriclesHumansHypertrophy, Right VentricularMaleMiddle AgedPoint-of-Care TestingProspective StudiesPulmonary EmbolismCompression ultrasound testPocket-size imaging devicesPulmonary embolismRevised Geneva scoreWells rule

Identifiers

PMID29850969
PMCPMC6182431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.