Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0122181. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122181. eCollection 2015.

The use of a pocket-sized ultrasound device improves physical examination: results of an in- and outpatient cohort study.

Author information

1
Internal Medicine Department, Ospedale A Manzoni, Lecco, Italy.
2
Department of Transfusion Medicine and Hematology, Ospedale A Manzoni, Lecco, Italy.
3
Second Division of Gastroenterology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
4
Gastroenterology and GI Endoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Macchi, Varese, Italy.
5
Division of Internal Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera "Carlo Poma", Mantova, Italy.
6
First Division of Internal Medicine, A.O. Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
7
Third Division of Internal Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo-Università degli Studi, Pavia, Italy.
8
Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences "L. Sacco," Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The performance of pocket mobile ultrasound devices (PUDs) is comparable with that of standard ultrasonography, whereas the accuracy of a physical examination is often poor requiring further tests to assess diagnostic hypotheses. Adding the use of PUD to physical examination could lead to an incremental benefit.

AIM:

We assessed whether the use of PUD in the context of physical examination can reduce the prescription of additional tests when used by physicians in different clinical settings.

METHODS:

We conducted a cohort impact study in four hospital medical wards, one gastroenterological outpatient clinic, and 90 general practices in the same geographical area. The study involved 135 physicians who used PUD, after a short predefined training course, to examine 1962 consecutive patients with one of 10 diagnostic hypotheses: ascites, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, urinary retention, urinary stones, gallstones, biliary-duct dilation, splenomegaly, abdominal mass, abdominal aortic aneurysm. According to the physicians' judgment, PUD examination could rule out or in the diagnostic hypothesis or require further testing; the concordance with the final diagnosis was assessed. The main outcome was the proportion of cases in which additional tests were required after PUD. The PUD diagnostic accuracy was assessed in patients submitted to further testing.

FINDINGS:

The 1962 patients included 37% in-patients, 26% gastroenterology outpatients, 37% from general practices. Further testing after PUD examination was deemed unnecessary in 63%. Only 5% of patients with negative PUD not referred for further testing were classified false negatives with respect to the final diagnosis. In patients undergoing further tests, the sensitivity was 91%, and the specificity 83%.

CONCLUSIONS:

After a simple and short training course, a PUD examination can be used in addition to a physical examination to improve the answer to ten common clinical questions concerning in- and outpatients, and can reduce the need for further testing.

PMID:
25793296
PMCID:
PMC4368724
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0122181
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center