These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Bedside lung ultrasound, mobile radiography and physical examination: a comparative analysis of diagnostic tools in the critically ill.
    Author: Inglis AJ, Nalos M, Sue KH, Hruby J, Campbell DM, Braham RM, Orde SR.
    Journal: Crit Care Resusc; 2016 Jun; 18(2):124. PubMed ID: 27242110.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare lung ultrasonography (LUS), chest xray (CXR) and physical examination (Ex) for the detection of pathological abnormalities in the lungs of critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of 145 patients in the intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital who were undergoing echocardiography for a clinical indication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each patient was independently assessed by Ex, CXR and LUS on the same day. Examiners were asked to comment on the presence or absence and severity of pleural effusion, lung consolidation and alveolar interstitial syndrome (AIS). Independent expert examiners performed the LUS and an independent radiologist reported on the CXR. RESULTS: Ex, CXR and LUS were in fair agreement with each other in detecting a pulmonary abnormality (CXR v LUS, κ = 0.31; CXR v Ex, κ = 0.29; LUS v Ex, κ = 0.22). LUS detected more abnormalities than did CXR (16.2%; χ(2) = 64.1; P < 0.001) or Ex (23.5%; χ(2) = 121.9; P < 0.001). CXR detected more pleural effusions than LUS (9.3%; χ(2) = 7.6; κ = 0.39), but LUS detected more pleural effusions than Ex (22.8%; χ(2) = 36.4; κ = 0.18). There was no significant difference in the performance of LUS and CXR in quantifying the size of a pleural effusion (Z = -1.2; P = 0.23). Ex underestimated size compared with CXR or LUS. LUS detected more consolidation than CXR (17%; χ(2) = 115.9; P < 0.001) and Ex (16.2%; χ(2) = 90.3; P < 0.001). We saw no difference in performance between CXR and Ex in detecting lung consolidation (0.9%; χ(2) = 0.51; P < 0.48). LUS detected more cases of AIS than CXR (5.5%; χ(2) = 7.9; P = 0.005) and Ex (13%; χ(2) = 25.8; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was only fair-to-moderate agreement between LUS, CXR and Ex in detecting pulmonary abnormalities, including pleural effusion, lung consolidation and AIS. The higher rate of detection from LUS, combined with its ease of use and increasing accessibility, makes for a powerful diagnostic tool in the ICU.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]