Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30405993›Full record

ArticleCureus2018

Point-of-care Ultrasonography for Detecting the Etiology of Unexplained Acute Respiratory and Chest Complaints in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Analysis.

Layton Lamsam, Laleh Gharahbaghian, Viveta Lobo

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04429698 (The Effects of Point-of-care Ultrasonography on the Dıagnosıs Process of Patıents Who Admıtted to Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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.

NCT04429698 nacompletednot on this map

The Effects of Point-of-care Ultrasonography on the Dıagnosıs Process of Patıents Who Admıtted to Emergency Department: Randomised-Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSakarya UniversityRan2018 to 2019Enrolled208ConditionsChest PainArmsPoint of care ultrasonography
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Layton LamsamSchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Laleh GharahbaghianDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA.
Viveta LoboDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA.
Stanford Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction  Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used as a diagnostic tool in emergency departments. As the number and type of POCUS protocols expand, there is a need to validate their efficacy in comparison with current diagnostic standards. This study compares POCUS to chest radiography in patients with undifferentiated respiratory or chest complaints. Methods A prospective convenience sample of 59 adult patients were enrolled from those presenting with unexplained acute respiratory or chest complaints (and having orders for chest radiography) to a single emergency department in an academic tertiary-care hospital. After a brief educational session, a medical student, blinded to chest radiograph results, performed and interpreted images from the modified Rapid Assessment of Dyspnea in Ultrasound (RADiUS) protocol. The images were reviewed by a blinded ultrasound fellowship-trained emergency physician and compared to chest radiography upon chart review. The primary "gold standard" endpoint diagnosis was the diagnosis at discharge. A secondary analysis was performed using the chest computed tomography (CT) diagnosis as the endpoint diagnosis in the subset of patients with chest CTs. Results When using diagnosis at discharge as the endpoint diagnosis, the modified RADiUS protocol had a higher sensitivity (79% vs. 67%) and lower specificity (71% vs. 83%) than chest radiography. When using chest CT diagnosis as the endpoint diagnosis (in the subset of patients with chest CTs), the modified RADiUS protocol had a higher sensitivity (76% vs. 65%) and lower specificity (71% vs. 100%) than chest radiography. The medical student performed and interpreted the 59 POCUS scans with 92% accuracy. Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of POCUS using the modified RADiUS protocol was not significantly different than chest radiography. In addition, a medical student was able to perform the protocol and interpret scans with a high level of accuracy. POCUS has potential value for diagnosing the etiology of undifferentiated acute respiratory and chest complaints in adult patients presenting to the emergency department, but larger clinical validation studies are required.

Indexed as

bedside ultrasoundchest ctchest painchest radiographydyspneaemergency departmentpoint-of-care ultrasoundradiusrapid assessment of dyspnea in ultrasoundultrasound

Identifiers

PMID30405993
PMCPMC6205892
OpenAlexW2888889115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.