ArticleBiomedical engineering online2023
The value of the wireless stethoscope in patients with COVID-19 infection in a makeshift hospital.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhen COVID-19 sweeps the world, traditional stethoscopes are seen as infectious agents and then the use of stethoscopes is limited especially when health providers were in their personal protective equipment. These reasons led to the ignoring of the values of stethoscopes during pandemics. This study aims to explore the value of wireless stethoscopes in patients of a makeshift hospital. MATERIAL AND
methods200 consecutive hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 at Lingang Makeshift Hospital in Shanghai, China, were enrolled from April 10 to May 10, 2022 (Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2000038272,2020/9/15). They were randomly divided into two groups. In group A (n = 100), patients were examined without a stethoscope. In group B (n = 100), lung breath sounds and heart sounds were examined with a wireless stethoscope, and positive signs were recorded. The duration of cough and tachycardia symptoms, as well as emergency cases, were compared between the two groups. In addition, the pressure, anxiety, and depression of patients in the two groups were investigated using the DAS-21 questionnaire scale, to observe the psychological impact of the stethoscope-based doctor-patient communication on patients in the makeshift hospital.
resultsThere was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. In group B, some significant positive signs were detected by wireless stethoscopes, including pulmonary rales and tachycardia, etc. Moreover, the therapeutic measures based on these positive signs effectively alleviated the symptoms of cough and tachycardia, which showed that the duration of symptoms was significantly shorter than that of group A (cough: 2.8 ± 0.9 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9; palpitation: 1.4 ± 0.7 vs. 2.6 ± 0.7). In particular, the number of emergency cases in group B is less than that in group A (1% vs. 3%), and the severity is lower. Notably, stethoscope-based doctor-patient communication was found to be effective in alleviating psychological measures of group B patients.
conclusionWireless stethoscopes in makeshift hospitals can avoid cross-infections and detect more valuable positive signs, which can help health providers make accurate decisions and relieve patients' symptoms more quickly. Moreover, stethoscope-based doctor-patient communication can diminish the psychological impacts of the epidemic on isolated patients in makeshift hospitals. Trial registration This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial (ChiCTR2000038272) at http://www.chictr.org.cn . http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/clinicaltrials.searchlistdetail.dhtml .
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.