Objectives
Point‐of‐care ultrasonography (POCUS) is an increasingly integral part of emergency medicine. This study investigated community emergency department physicians’ choices regarding ...ultrasonography as a branch point in clinical decision making.
Methods
During shifts covering all days of the week and all time‐spans over a 3‐month period, emergency department physicians were interviewed whenever POCUS was used. Questions focused on the role of POCUS in clinical management and on tests avoided because of ultrasonography use. Cost savings attributable to POCUS were calculated using Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and FairHealth data. Anonymization of data precluded follow‐up testing to account for misdiagnosis.
Results
On average, POCUS use eliminated $1134.31 of additional testing for privately insured patients, $2826.31 for out‐of‐network or uninsured patients, and $181.63 for Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services patients. Differences were significant when the total cost of eliminated additional testing was compared to a baseline of no savings (p < .001). Aggregate cost savings remained significant when analyses were broadened to include POCUS encounters that did not yield changes in management (p < .001).
Conclusions
When physicians’ clinical expertise suggests that POCUS may be indicated, its use results in significant cost savings, even in encounters in which management is not directly impacted. POCUS, when incorporated earlier and more frequently into community hospital emergency medicine diagnostic protocols, can lower direct and indirect costs associated with diagnostic workups. Community emergency departments, in particular, would benefit from additional investigation informing specific guidelines for the integration of POCUS into clinical management and the role that this has in cost savings.
Thoracic ultrasonography is a noninvasive and readily available imaging modality that has important applications in pulmonary medicine outside of the ICU. It allows the clinician to diagnose a ...variety of thoracic disorders at the point of care. Ultrasonography is useful in imaging lung consolidation, pleural-based masses and effusions, pneumothorax, and diaphragmatic dysfunction. It can identify complex or loculated effusions and be useful in planning treatment. Identifying intrathoracic mass lesions can guide sampling by aspiration and biopsy. This article summarizes thoracic ultrasonography applications for the pulmonary specialist, related procedural codes, and reimbursement. The major concepts are illustrated with cases. These case summaries are enhanced with online supplemental videos and chest radiograph, chest CT scan, and ultrasound correlation.
Background
The respiratory illness caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and ...moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case‐control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Objectives
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X‐ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID‐19.
Search methods
We searched the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID‐19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.
Selection criteria
We included studies of all designs, except for case‐control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID‐19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates.
Data collection and analysis
The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS‐2 domain‐list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta‐analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Main results
We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID‐19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID‐19. Forty‐seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT‐PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID‐19, with 47 studies using only RT‐PCR and four studies using a combination of RT‐PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow‐up phone calls) as the reference standard.
Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17).
Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty‐two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow.
For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies.
Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID‐19 Reporting and Data System (CO‐RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO‐RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO‐RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4).
For chest X‐ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X‐ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8).
For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6).
Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X‐ray, or chest X‐ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity.
Authors' conclusions
Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID‐19. Chest X‐ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID‐19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID‐19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID‐19 than for differentiating SARS‐CoV‐2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness.
Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre‐define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.
Background
Comparison of clinical findings, chest radiographs (CXR), lung ultrasound (LUS) findings, and C‐reactive protein (CRP) concentrations at admission and serial follow‐up in dogs with ...aspiration pneumonia (AP) is lacking.
Hypothesis
Lung ultrasound lesions in dogs with AP are similar to those described in humans with community‐acquired pneumonia (comAP); the severity of CXR and LUS lesions are similar; normalization of CRP concentration precedes resolution of imaging abnormalities and more closely reflects the clinical improvement of dogs.
Animals
Seventeen dogs with AP.
Methods
Prospective observational study. Clinical examination, CXR, LUS, and CRP measurements performed at admission (n = 17), 2 weeks (n = 13), and 1 month after diagnosis (n = 6). All dogs received antimicrobial therapy. Lung ultrasound and CXR canine aspiration scoring systems used to compare abnormalities.
Results
B‐lines and shred signs with or without bronchograms were identified on LUS in 14 of 17 and 16 of 17, at admission. Chest radiographs and LUS scores differed significantly using both canine AP scoring systems at each time point (18 regions per dog, P < .001). Clinical and CRP normalization occurred in all dogs during follow up. Shred signs disappeared on LUS in all but 1 of 6 dogs at 1 month follow‐up, while B‐lines and CXR abnormalities persisted in 4 of 6 and all dogs, respectively.
Conclusion and Clinical Importance
Lung ultrasound findings resemble those of humans with comAP and differ from CXR findings. Shred signs and high CRP concentrations better reflect clinical findings during serial evaluation of dogs.
Ultrasonography (US) is an indispensable tool in breast imaging and is complementary to both mammography and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast. Advances in US technology allow confident ...characterization of not only benign cysts but also benign and malignant solid masses. Knowledge and understanding of current and emerging US technology, along with the application of meticulous scanning technique, is imperative for image optimization and diagnosis. The ability to synthesize breast US findings with multiple imaging modalities and clinical information is also necessary to ensure the best patient care. US is routinely used to guide breast biopsies and is also emerging as a supplemental screening tool in women with dense breasts and a negative mammogram. This review provides a summary of current state-of-the-art US technology, including elastography, and applications of US in clinical practice as an adjuvant technique to mammography, MR imaging, and the clinical breast examination. The use of breast US for screening, preoperative staging for breast cancer, and breast intervention will also be discussed.
Objectives
It is essential to know the normal extrusion measures in order to detect pathological ones. In this study, we aimed to define some normal reference values for meniscal extrusion in the ...normal knees during different ranges of motion.
Methods
The amount of anterior and posterior portion of meniscal extrusion among 21 asymptomatic volunteers (42 knees) were tracked in 0, 45, and 90° of knee flexion using an ultrasound machine. The repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to show the interaction between the amounts of meniscal extrusion and the different degrees of knee flexion.
Results
The anterior portion of the lateral menisci at full knee extension (0.59 ± 1.40) and the posterior portion of the medial menisci during 90° flexion (3.06 ± 2.36) showed the smallest and the highest mean amount of extrusion, respectively. The normal average amounts of anterior extrusion were 1.12 ± 1.17 and 0.99 ± 1.34 mm for medial and lateral menisci, respectively. The posterior meniscal normal extrusions were significantly increasing in both medial and lateral menisci during the survey (F = 20.250 and 11.298; both P values <.001) as they were measured 2.37 ± 2.16 and 1.53 ± 2.18 mm in order.
Conclusions
The medial meniscus can extrude 1.74 ± 1.84 mm normally while this amount was 1.26 ± 1.82 mm for the lateral meniscus. These measures commonly increased with the rising of knee flexion motion. Likewise, the posterior portion showed more extrusion than the anterior portion on both sides. These measures commonly increased with higher knee flexion.
Access the CME test here and search by article title.
PDF
