ArticleCureus2025
Patient Self-Scanning for Lung Ultrasound: A Prospective Observational Study on the Feasibility and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Telemedicine Protocol.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of patient-performed lung ultrasound (P-PLUS) for telemedicine purposes.
methodsThis prospective observation study included patients over 18 years old who presented to a tertiary care hospital's emergency department. Patients were provided a five-minute instructional video on a US protocol of four lung zones and then performed the protocol while being monitored by a study investigator. The physician sonographer subsequently repeated the protocol. Two emergency physicians with US fellowship training blindly reviewed and independently rated image quality on a scale of one to five, with a score of three or more considered interpretable. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and chi-square tests were used to compare group differences.
resultsA total of 56 patients (45% female) were enrolled, and 417 clips were analyzed. Ten (18%) participants worked in the medical field, and 44 (79%) had at least some college education. Forty (71%) regularly used technology at work, 52 (93%) had internet access at home, and the same number had access to smartphones. Patients reported high comfort in performing self-LUS (median score: 4, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5-5) and high willingness to perform US acquisition again in the future (median score: 4, IQR: 4-5). The proportion of interpretable images was similar between the two groups except for the left hemidiaphragm (90% of provider-obtained images were interpretable vs. 45% of patient-obtained images, P = 0.002). The majority of patient-obtained images were scored between three and four and classified as interpretable. Mean image scores were significantly higher for provider-obtained images (P < 0.05). Inter-rater reliability between the two raters was good (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)= 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.84).
conclusionPatients can independently obtain interpretable LUS images in all views with minimal video-based instruction. The ability of patients to obtain interpretable LUS images with minimal tele-guidance, as well as their high levels of comfort and willingness to perform the procedure, support the potential use of P-PLUS in home-based and remote patient care.
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.