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.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of spectral Doppler in handheld ultrasonographic device.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- A comparison of handheld versus cart-based ultrasound in the evaluation and diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2024Article
- Prospective Comparison of Handheld Ultrasound Devices from Different Manufacturers with Respect to B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance for Various Abdominal Sonography Questions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Integrated Assessment of Heart, Lung and Lower Extremity Veins Using Hand-Held Ultrasound Device in COVID-19 Patients: Feasibility and Clinical Application.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic Value of Bedside Echocardiography and Lower Extremity Blood Vessels in Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Stem cells international · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.