ArticleMedeniyet medical journal2026
Assessment of an Ultrasonography-Based Algorithm for Detecting the Causes of Acute Dyspnea in an Emergency Hospital.
Article in Medeniyet medical journal, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the value of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in identifying the causes of acute dyspnea (AD). Methods: In this prospective study, hospitalized adults with AD were enrolled. They underwent POCUS of the heart, lungs, and deep veins of the lower extremities, supplemented by lung auscultation (LA); all examinations were performed by an investigator blinded to the clinical diagnosis. The ultrasound profiles were compared with the clinical diagnoses to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the method. Results: A total of 150 patients, with a mean age of 65.8±15.7 years, were enrolled, and 53% were women. POCUS combined with LA showed a higher diagnostic accuracy [0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-0.91)] than POCUS alone [0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84)]. The POCUS-based protocol showed the highest sensitivity for pleural effusion (1.0) and pericardial effusion [0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-1.00)], and the lowest sensitivity for pneumothorax (0.75 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]) and pulmonary edema [0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87)]. The examination duration was 12.5±3.9 min. Conclusions: The POCUS-based protocol was a rapid, informative tool for identifying the causes of AD in hospitalized adults, and the addition of LA further increased its diagnostic accuracy.
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.