ArticleCritical care explorations2023
Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound in a Tertiary Medical Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic hand-held echocardiography in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Critical care echocardiography (CCE) is a useful tool for managing critically ill patients in intensive care. However, concerns exist regarding the accuracy of CCE examinations because of operator dependence. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of CCE examinations compared with cardiology-performed transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Design Setting and Subjects: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients in a medical ICU in a large academic medical center in the United States. We compared CCE examinations performed by a fellow and reviewed by a staff physician between May 5, 2020, and December 31, 2021, to TTE obtained within 24 hours of the CCE examination. Intervention Measurements and Main Results: We developed a standardized process for documentation of all CCE examinations performed in the medical ICU. We assessed agreement (kappa statistic), sensitivity and specificity of CCE examination compared with TTE. Features included left ventricle (LV) systolic function, right ventricle (RV) size, RV systolic function, pericardial effusion, mitral insufficiency, tricuspid insufficiency, and aortic insufficiency. The study analyzed 504 pairs of CCE and TTE examinations. Kappa statistics for detecting LV and RV systolic dysfunction, pericardial effusion, and RV size ranged from 0.60 to 0.74. CCE showed high sensitivity and specificity for detecting LV and RV systolic dysfunction and pericardial effusion, with values ranging from 0.85 to 0.99. The kappa statistic for detecting RV dilation was 0.59, with a sensitivity of 0.71 and a specificity of 0.85. In contrast, CCE examinations were nondiagnostic for mitral, tricuspid, or aortic insufficiency in 60-70% of cases, whereas TTE examinations were nondiagnostic in 20-30% of cases. Kappa statistics for mitral, tricuspid, and aortic insufficiency ranged from 0.32 to 0.42. Conclusions: CCE is a reliable tool for assessing LV and RV systolic function, pericardial effusion, and RV size. However, CCE may be limited in its ability to detect mitral, tricuspid, or aortic insufficiency.
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.