ReviewCureus2021
Physical Examination for the Detection of Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2021. 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
We performed a systematic review to determine whether the physical examination can reliably assist in the diagnostic approach for patients suspected of having pulmonary hypertension (PH). Using dual extraction, two investigators independently searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies that compared physical examination findings with a right heart catheterization, from inception until July 10, 2021. We obtained data from four studies that evaluated physical examination findings in patients receiving a right heart catheterization to diagnose PH. Pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated for right ventricular heave, a loud pulmonic component of the second heart sound (P2), jugular venous pressure (JVP) 3 cm above sternal angle, and a palpable P2. Three physical examination findings had DOR that supports the diagnosis of PH: the JVP > 3 cm above the sternal angle (5.90, 95% CI 2.57, 13.57), a loud P2 (2.91, 95% CI 1.38, 6.10), and a right ventricular heave (2.78, 95% CI 1.12, 6.89). The palpable P2 had a DOR less than one and was not able to be conclusive in diagnosing PH. Our systematic review found a small body of evidence supporting the use of physical examination tests in the diagnostic evaluation of pulmonary hypertension. The JVP > 3 cm above the sternal angle was the most accurate physical examination sign for the diagnosis of PH. Larger cohort studies using a combination of tests may shed more light on the role of the physical examination in the diagnosis and early detection of pulmonary hypertension.
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.