ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2025
Evaluating general practitioners' focused lung ultrasound competence and findings in patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia in general practice.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04711031 (Focused Lung Ultrasound), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Focused Lung Ultrasound: A Prospective Cohort Study in General Practice
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of focused lung ultrasound on antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections in Danish general practice (PLUS-FLUS): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, post-market trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound examination of the lung in primary care performed by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate general practitioners' (GPs') ability to perform focused lung ultrasound (FLUS) following a training program and assess FLUS feasibility in general practice. Also, to describe FLUS findings and evaluate GPs' ability to interpret these in adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) when pneumonia is suspected and assess GPs' perception of FLUS impact.
methodsNine GPs, using point-of-care ultrasound, completed a FLUS training program. Adults (≥ 18 years) with acute cough (< 28 days) and at least one other symptom of acute LRTI, where the GP suspected pneumonia, were subsequently included. All patients received FLUS. The GPs reported FLUS findings, feasibility, and perception of FLUS impact. Recorded FLUS videos from all patients were reviewed by two specialists (Specialist Reference). The specialists assessed FLUS image quality. Agreements between the GPs and the Specialist Reference on FLUS findings were used to evaluate GPs' ability to interpret FLUS.
resultsOf 91 patients included, FLUS image quality was acceptable or higher in 84 patients (92.4%). FLUS proved feasible with only two scans not completed. The GPs reported FLUS pathological findings in 51.7% of patients in 78% agreement with the Specialist Reference and Cohen's kappa 0.56. Focal B-lines represented the most frequent pathological findings. The GPs perceived that FLUS impacted change in tentative diagnosis and/or plans for treatment and/or visitation in 29 (32.0%) of patients.
conclusionAfter the training, the GPs performed FLUS well. Interpretation of FLUS pathology presence was of moderate agreement. The GPs perceived that FLUS had impact on patient management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04711031.
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.