RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comprehensive Physical Exam versus Lung Ultrasound for Dyspneic Patients in the Emergency Department
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.10.08.22280828
DO 10.1101/2022.10.08.22280828
A1 Secko, Michael
A1 Cheng, Yuwen
A1 Raj, Sonika
A1 Goradia, Eshani
A1 Reardon, Lindsay
A1 Thode, Henry C.
A1 Singer, Adam J.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/10/2022.10.08.22280828.abstract
AB Objective Overreliance on technology has led to dwindling physical exam (PE) skills. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of a structured lung physical examination (L-PE) to structured lung ultrasound (LUS) in ED patients with undifferentiated dyspnea. We also examined the change in differential diagnosis and degree of certainty based on order and type of examMethods This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study of a convenience sample of adult ED patients with undifferentiated dyspnea. Comprehensive L-PE and LUS were performed in random order followed by the other exam. An adjudication committee determined the final diagnosis based on all available data and served as the criterion standard. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. A sample of 86 patients had 80% power to detect a 25% difference in diagnostic accuracy.Results A total of 102 patients were enrolled. Similar accuracies were found between L-PE and LUS for both COPD [75% (95% CI 65-83) vs. 76% (95% CI 67-84)] and asthma [87% (95% CI 79-93) vs. 87% (95 CI 79-93)]. LUS [81% (95 CI 72-88)] was slightly more accurate compared to L-PE [72% (95 CI 62-80)] for diagnosis of pneumonia but not statistically significant. For patients presenting with pulmonary edema, LUS was slightly [76% (95 CI 66-84)] more accurate than L-PE [73% (95 CI 63-81)], but not statistically significant. Finally, for detecting pleural effusions, L-PE [96% (95 CI 90-99)] was more accurate than LUS [82% (95 CI 73-89)].Conclusions The diagnostic accuracies of comprehensive lung physical examination and focused lung ultrasound were generally similar in ED patients with dyspnea and should be used concurrently to maximize diagnostic accuracy.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26033127/ Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics IRB of Stony Brook University gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.