ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
Evaluation of the electronic stethoscope (FONODOC) as a cardiac screening tool during the preoperative evaluation of children.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phonocardiopulmography: the future of perioperative auscultation.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
- Review on the Advancements of Stethoscope Types in Chest Auscultation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Paediatric anaesthesia practice: Has it really changed over the times?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: An electronic stethoscope with an inbuilt phonocardiogram is a potentially useful tool for paediatric cardiac evaluation in a resource-limited setting. We aimed to compare the acoustic and electronic stethoscopes with respect to the detection of murmurs as compared to the transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Methods: This was an observational study. Fifty children aged 0-12 years with congenital heart diseases (CHDs) and 50 without CHD scheduled for echocardiography were examined using both stethoscopes. The findings were corroborated with clinical findings and compared with the echocardiography report. Results: Among the 50 cases without CHD, no murmur was detected using either of the stethoscopes. This was in agreement with TTE findings. The calculated specificity of both stethoscopes was 100%. Amongst the 50 cases with CHD, the electronic stethoscope picked up murmurs in 32 cases and missed 18 cases. The acoustic stethoscope picked up murmurs in 29 cases and missed 21 cases. Thus, the sensitivity of electronic and acoustic stethoscopes as compared to TTE was calculated to be 64% and 58%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the electronic stethoscope as compared to TTE was 100% while the negative predictive value was 73%. The kappa statistic was 0.93 suggesting agreement in 93%. Mc-Nemar's test value was 0.24 suggesting that the electronic stethoscope did not offer any advantage over the acoustic stethoscope for the detection of CHD in children. Conclusion: A comparison of the electronic stethoscope with an acoustic stethoscope suggests that the rate of detection of CHD with both stethoscopes is similar and echocardiography remains the gold standard.
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.