ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2022
Diagnostic utility of lung echography for congestive heart failure performed by junior resident doctors.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic utility of lung echography for congestive heart failure performed by junior resident doctors.Journal of general and family medicine · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dyspnea is a high priority symptom in the emergency department, with heart failure (HF) as one of its leading causes. Recently, the "comet tail sign (CTS)," a pulmonary ultrasonographic sign, has been proposed as an efficacious tool for detecting pulmonary edema. However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no published data regarding its utility when performed by non-experts, including junior residents. Methods: Between September 2017 and December 2018, patients with dyspnea, who were admitted to the ER, were enrolled. CTS was evaluated by junior residents at the ER. All patients were evaluated by cardiologists independently, and clinical HF was defined as requiring pharmacological intervention by a cardiologist. At the end of this study, we investigated the results of CTS, laboratory data, and available radiological images. Results: A total of 95 patients were enrolled in the current study, wherein 42 patients were treated by cardiologists as those with clinical HF. Our results showed that CTS could identify clinical HF with a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 81.1%. The sensitivity of CTS against brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) (cut-off value, 100 pg/ml) was calculated at 92.5%. Furthermore, when evaluated together with peripheral edema, CTS identified clinical HF with a sensitivity of 96%. False positives for CTS included bilateral pneumonia, hypoalbuminemia, and interstitial pneumonitis. Conclusions: Our results indicate that CTS is a simple and effective tool for the use of non-experts, including junior residents.
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.