Diagnostic Accuracy of a Handheld Ultrasound vs a Cart-based Model: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.5811/westjem.17822
Ryan C Gibbons, Daniel J Jaeger, Matthew Berger, Mark Magee, Claire Shaffer, Thomas G Costantino
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of a Handheld Ultrasound vs a Cart-based Model: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Ryan C Gibbons, Daniel J Jaeger, Matthew Berger, Mark Magee, Claire Shaffer, Thomas G Costantino","doi":"10.5811/westjem.17822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Numerous studies have demonstrated the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Portable, handheld devices have expanded the clinical scope of POCUS at a fraction of the cost of traditional, cart-based models. There is a paucity of data assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable devices. Our objective in this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a portable device with a cart-based model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an institutional review board-approved, observational, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT05196776) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to a university-based health system. Patients who required a cardiac, lung, renal, aorta, or biliary POCUS were randomized to a portable device or to a cart-based model. We hypothesized that the cart-based model would have a 90% diagnostic accuracy vs 70% for the handheld device. To detect a 20% difference, the sample size was calculated to be 98, with 49 patients randomized to each arm. We used standard 2x2 tables to calculate test characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 110 patients were enrolled, with 56 patients randomized to the cart-based model and 54 to the handheld device. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the cart-based vs handheld were 77.8% (40-97.2) vs 92.9% (66.1-99.8), 91.5% (79.6-97.6) vs 92.3% (79.1-98.4%), and 89.3% (78.1-96) vs 92.5% (81.8-97.9), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diagnostic accuracy of a portable, handheld device is similar to that of a cart-based model.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"268-274"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000544/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.17822","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Numerous studies have demonstrated the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Portable, handheld devices have expanded the clinical scope of POCUS at a fraction of the cost of traditional, cart-based models. There is a paucity of data assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable devices. Our objective in this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a portable device with a cart-based model.

Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved, observational, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT05196776) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to a university-based health system. Patients who required a cardiac, lung, renal, aorta, or biliary POCUS were randomized to a portable device or to a cart-based model. We hypothesized that the cart-based model would have a 90% diagnostic accuracy vs 70% for the handheld device. To detect a 20% difference, the sample size was calculated to be 98, with 49 patients randomized to each arm. We used standard 2x2 tables to calculate test characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled, with 56 patients randomized to the cart-based model and 54 to the handheld device. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the cart-based vs handheld were 77.8% (40-97.2) vs 92.9% (66.1-99.8), 91.5% (79.6-97.6) vs 92.3% (79.1-98.4%), and 89.3% (78.1-96) vs 92.5% (81.8-97.9), respectively.

Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of a portable, handheld device is similar to that of a cart-based model.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手持式超声与推车式超声的诊断准确性对比:随机临床试验
简介大量研究证明了床旁超声检查(POCUS)的准确性。便携式手持设备扩大了 POCUS 的临床应用范围,其成本仅为传统推车式设备的一小部分。目前评估便携式设备诊断准确性的数据还很少。本研究的目的是比较便携式设备和推车式设备的诊断准确性:这是一项经机构审查委员会批准的观察性、前瞻性、随机临床试验(NCT05196776),研究对象是在一所大学医疗系统就诊的成年患者。需要进行心脏、肺部、肾脏、主动脉或胆道 POCUS 检查的患者被随机分配到便携式设备或推车式设备中。我们假设推车式模型的诊断准确率为 90%,而手持式设备为 70%。为了检测出 20% 的差异,我们计算出样本量为 98 人,每组随机分配 49 名患者。我们使用标准的 2x2 表格计算测试特征及 95% 置信区间 (CI):结果:共有 110 名患者被纳入样本,其中 56 名患者被随机分配到推车式模型,54 名患者被随机分配到手持式设备。推车式与手持式的灵敏度、特异性和诊断准确性分别为 77.8% (40-97.2) vs 92.9% (66.1-99.8)、91.5% (79.6-97.6) vs 92.3% (79.1-98.4%)和 89.3% (78.1-96) vs 92.5% (81.8-97.9):结论:便携式手持设备的诊断准确性与推车式设备相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Prehospital Ultrasound Training on Simulated Paramedic Clinical Decision-Making. Interfacility Patient Transfers During COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed-Methods Study. Making A Difference: Launching a Multimodal, Resident-Run Social Emergency Medicine Program. Methadone Initiation in the Emergency Department for Opioid Use Disorder. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Sepsis in Adult Patients Meeting Two or More Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1