Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34692270›Full record

ReviewCureus2021

Physical Examination for the Detection of Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review.

Richard A Shellenberger, Komal Imtiaz, Niranjana Chellappa, Lakshmi Gundapanneni, Caleb Scheidel, Rishin Handa, Aparna Bhat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Richard A ShellenbergerInternal Medicine, Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor Hospital, Ann Arbor, USA.
Komal ImtiazCardiovascular Medicine, Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, USA.
Niranjana ChellappaInternal Medicine, Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor Hospital, Ann Arbor, USA.
Lakshmi GundapanneniPulmonary and Critical Care, Ascension Macomb-Oakland Hospital, Warren, USA.
Caleb ScheidelStatistics, Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor Hospital, Ann Arbor, USA.
Rishin HandaCardiology, Tower Health Medical Group, West Reading, USA.
Aparna BhatPulmonary and Critical Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical diagnosisevidence base medicinephysical examinationpulmonary hypertensionsystematic review and meta analysis

Identifiers

PMID34692270
PMCPMC8523183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.