ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2025
Diagnostic value of combined heart and lung ultrasound in emergency department patients with dyspnea.
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic value of combined heart and lung ultrasound in emergency department patients with dyspnea.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute dyspnea in emergency departments (ED) requires prompt and accurate diagnosis due to its high mortality and readmission rates. Conventional diagnostic methods are resource-intensive and time-consuming. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and time to diagnosis of combined heart and lung ultrasound (HeaLus) compared to standard emergency department evaluation in patients presenting with dyspnea.
methodsA prospective study was conducted in a cohort of 61 patients at the ED of Danderyd Hospital, Sweden. HeaLus examinations were performed alongside routine investigations. Diagnostic performance of HeaLus and ED evaluation was assessed for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, and agreement using Kappa index. Median time to diagnostics was compared between HeaLus and ED evaluation using Mann-Whitney U-test.
resultsHeart failure was the most common diagnosis (20%) among patients presenting with dyspnea. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 95% (95% CI: [87%, 98%]), 98% (95% CI: [88%, 100%]), 90% (95% CI: [69%, 97%]), 95% (95% CI: [85%, 99%]), and 94% (95% CI: [74%, 99%]), respectively. The agreement between HeaLus and ED diagnoses was 0.88. Time to diagnosis was significantly reduced with HeaLus (21 min vs. 3 h and 28 min).
conclusionsHeaLus offers rapid and accurate assessment of dyspnea. These results suggest that HeaLus could be valuable in optimizing patient management, particularly in settings with limited resources and long ED wait times.
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.