Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31912163›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2020

[Pulmonary sonography-a valuable supplement to basic diagnostics for timely outpatient clarification of cough and dyspnea].

Viktor Rüttermann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

1 author.

Viktor RüttermannHausärztliche Gemeinschaftspraxis Nordholter Weg, Nordholter Weg 10, 48317, Drensteinfurt, Deutschland. ruettermann@gemeinschaftspraxis-walstedde.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cough and dyspnea are among the most common symptoms in primary medical care and potentially threatening diseases must be excluded in a timely manner, especially acute heart failure and its causes, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism and pneumothorax. Anamnesis, inspection, physical examination and technical basic diagnostics are usually sufficient for an initial risk stratification. A reliable suspected diagnosis can often be made in this way; however, it is not uncommon for the findings to be ambiguous. Chest X‑ray diagnostics and laboratory diagnostics are established as the standard approach for these situations; however, a major limitation of these diagnostic techniques is the lack of immediate availability in the general practitioner's office and laboratory results are not available until the next day or the day after. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of these diagnostic procedures are limited but often overestimated, especially in the case of mild to moderately pronounced alterations and in early stages of a disease. Thoracic sonography can be used in these situations as a direct extension of the physical examination. Its diagnostic value is undisputed. The most important pathological findings, such as pleural effusion and subpleural consolidations can be immediately visualized with sufficient certainty using miniaturized handheld ultrasound devices. The concept of the ultrasound stethoscope, which has been under discussion for more than 15 years, can also be implemented as point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The POCUS will become established as routine diagnostics in the future, for example in emergency outpatient diagnostics. It is time for pulmonary ultrasound to be added to the repertoire of primary care diagnostics.

Indexed as

OutpatientsCoughDyspneaHumansLungUltrasonographyHeart failurePleural effusionPneumoniaPoint-of-care testingRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID31912163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.