↓ Skip to main content

Brief cardiovascular imaging with pocket-size ultrasound devices improves the accuracy of the initial assessment of suspected pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (formerly Cardiac Imaging), May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,179)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Brief cardiovascular imaging with pocket-size ultrasound devices improves the accuracy of the initial assessment of suspected pulmonary embolism
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (formerly Cardiac Imaging), May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10554-018-1382-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominika Filipiak-Strzecka, Jarosław D. Kasprzak, Piotr Lipiec

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism onset is frequently neglected due to the non-specific character of its symptoms. Pocket-size imaging devices (PSID) present an opportunity to implement imaging diagnostics into conventional physical examination. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that supplementation of the initial bedside assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) with four-point compression venous ultrasonography (CUS) and right ventricular size assessment with the use of PSID equipped with dual probe could positively influence the accuracy of clinical predictions. A single-centre, prospective analysis was conducted on 100 patients (47 men, mean age 68 ± 13 years) with suspected PE. Clinical assessment on the basis of Wells and revised Geneva score and physical examination were supplemented with CUS and RV measurements by PSID. The mean time of PSID scanning was 4.9 ± 0.8 min and was universally accepted by the patients. Fifteen patients had deep venous thrombosis and RV enlargement was observed in 59 patients. PE was confirmed in 24 patients. If the both CUS was positive and RV enlarged, the specificity was 100% and sensitivity 54%, ROC AUC 0.771 [95% CI 0.68-0.85]. The Wells rule within our study population had the specificity of 86% and sensitivity of 67%, ROC AUC 0.776 (95% CI 0.681-0.853, p < 0.0001). Similar values calculated for the revised Geneva score were as follows: specificity 58% and sensitivity 63%, ROC AUC 0.664 (95% CI 0.563-0.756, p = 0.0104). Supplementing the revised Geneva score with additional criteria of CUS result and RV measurement resulted in significant improvement of diagnostic accuracy. The difference between ROC AUCs was 0.199 (95% Cl 0.0893-0.308, p = 0.0004). Similar modification of Wells score increased ROC AUC by 0.133 (95% CI 0.0443-0.223, p = 0.0034). Despite the well-acknowledged role of the PE clinical risk assessment scores the diagnostic process may benefit from the addition of basic bedside ultrasonographic techniques.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 33%
Unspecified 1 33%
Unknown 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 67%
Unknown 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2019.
All research outputs
#930,902
of 13,316,854 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (formerly Cardiac Imaging)
#7
of 1,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,570
of 267,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (formerly Cardiac Imaging)
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,316,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,179 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.