ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Contribution of caval index and ejection fraction estimated by e-point septal separation measured by emergency physicians in the clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough the reliability of e-point septal separation (EPSS) and caval index (CI) is proven in the diagnosis of acute heart failure (AHF), how much they contribute to the initial clinical impression is unclear. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic contribution of EPSS and CI to the initial clinical impression of AHF.
methodsThis is a prospective observational study conducted in an academic emergency department (ED). The patients admitted to the ED with acute undifferentiated dyspnea were included. Primary diagnosis was made after an initial clinical evaluation, and a secondary diagnosis was made after EPSS and CI measurements. Independent cardiologists made the final diagnosis. The primary outcome was the diagnostic contribution of EPSS and CI to the primary diagnosis.
resultsA total of 182 patients were included in the study. The primary diagnosis was found with a sensitivity of 0.55 and specificity of 0.84 and the secondary diagnosis was determined with a sensitivity of 0.78 and specificity of 0.83 in predicting the final diagnosis. The agreement coefficient between the primary and final diagnosis was 0.44 and between the secondary diagnosis and the final diagnosis was 0.61. When the primary diagnosis was coherent with secondary diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 0.74 and 0.90, respectively.
conclusionAlthough a detailed history and physical examination are the essential factors in shaping clinical perception, CI and EPSS combined significantly contribute to the initial clinical impression.
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.