ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Novice point-of-care ultrasound for the assessment of acute dyspnea in the emergency department.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDyspnea is one of the most common presentations to the ED. The goal of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS examination completed by a medical student for several causes of dyspnea.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted in the ED of an academic center. Adult patients (≥ 18 yo) who presented to the emergency room with dyspnea were enrolled in the study. The study investigator was a medical student who was blinded to the clinical work up. Standardized POCUS examinations were performed following a modified BLUE protocol to identify the dyspnea etiology as one of the following diagnoses: asthma/COPD, acute heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pneumothorax, and non-diagnostic. POCUS diagnoses were compared to the clinical diagnosis made by the treating emergency physician.
results250 patients were enrolled in the study. 99 (39.6%) patients were male, and 136 (54.4%) patients identified as Black. POCUS demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing asthma/COPD, acute heart failure, pneumonia, and pneumothorax. Concordance was optimal (0.8 < k < 1) for the diagnosis of asthma/COPD, acute decompensated heart failure; good (0.6 < k < 0.8) for pneumonia and non-diagnostic; and moderate (0.4 < k < 0.6) for pneumothorax and pulmonary embolism. Overall concordance was optimal (k = 0.84).
conclusionPOCUS examinations completed by a medical student demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy for asthma/COPD, acute heart failure, and pneumonia. Medical student POCUS examinations could be used for risk stratification to identify patients that require additional diagnostic imaging.
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.