ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
Physicians' abilities to obtain and interpret focused cardiac ultrasound images from critically ill patients after a 2-day training course.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine whether a focused 2-day cardiac ultrasound training course could enable physicians to obtain and interpret focused cardiac ultrasound (FCU) images from critically ill patients.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the FCU images submitted by the physicians who attended a 2-day FCU training courses. Three experienced trainers reviewed the images separately. They determined whether the images were assessable and scored the images on an 8-point scale. They also decided whether the physicians provided correct responses for visual estimations of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricle (RV) dilatation and septal motion.
resultsAmong the 327 physicians, 291 obtained images that were considered assessable (89%). The scores for parasternal short-axis view were lower than those obtained for other transthoracic echocardiographic views, p < 0.001. More physicians provided incorrect appraisals of LVEF than of RV dilatation and septal motion (19.9% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). The percentages of incorrect answers by LVEF category were as follows: 34.8% on images of LVEF < 30, 24.7% on images of LVEF 30-54, and 16.4% on images of LVEF ≥55%, p < 0.001. A logistic regression analysis showed that patients with abnormal LVEF were associated with physicians' incorrect assessment of LVEF, with an odds ratio of 1.923 (95% confidence interval (CI):1.071-3.456, p = 0.029).
conclusionsA large proportion of physicians could obtain and interpret FCU images from critically ill patients after a 2-day training course. However, they still scored low on the parasternal short-axis view and were more likely to make an incorrect assessment of LVEF in patients with abnormal left ventricular systolic function.
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.