Effect of a point-of-care ultrasound-driven diagnostic pathway on diagnostic certainty in emergency department patients with dyspnea: a randomized controlled substudy.
Stig Holm Ovesen, Søren Helbo Skaarup, Rasmus Aagaard, Bo Løfgren, Stefan Posth, Michael Dan Arvig, Christian B Laursen, Hans Kirkegaard, Jesper Weile
{"title":"Effect of a point-of-care ultrasound-driven diagnostic pathway on diagnostic certainty in emergency department patients with dyspnea: a randomized controlled substudy.","authors":"Stig Holm Ovesen, Søren Helbo Skaarup, Rasmus Aagaard, Bo Løfgren, Stefan Posth, Michael Dan Arvig, Christian B Laursen, Hans Kirkegaard, Jesper Weile","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>In emergency department (ED) patients with dyspnea, diagnostic uncertainty has been linked to poorer outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may help reduce this uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore how POCUS influences ED physicians' diagnostic thinking and perceived uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Design, settings, and participants: </strong>This preplanned substudy of a randomized controlled trial across 10 Danish EDs compared diagnostic pathways with vs. without focused lung and cardiac ultrasound.</p><p><strong>Outcomes measure and analysis: </strong>Paired physician surveys and electronic health record data were used to evaluate predefined outcomes: (a) physicians' experienced benefit of diagnostic tests; (b) the number of differential diagnoses; (c) posttest probability estimates; (d) concurrent treatment; and (e) concordance between tentative diagnoses. The primary outcome of the parent trial was discharge alive within 24 h; this substudy focused on early diagnostic reasoning and certainty.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Between 25 January 2023 and 23 August 2024, 40 physicians enrolled 674 patients. The median number of differential diagnoses was similar between groups [intervention: 3 (interquartile range - IQR: 2-4); control: 3 (IQR: 2-4)]. The proportion of patients with a reduced differential count was 65.3 vs. 72.9% [risk difference: -7.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): -14.9 to -0.3]. The median estimated probability of the leading diagnosis was higher with POCUS (80 vs. 73%). Concordance between initial and revised physician diagnoses was also higher (70.6 vs. 63.1%; risk difference: 7.5, 95% CI: 0.1-15.0), while concordance with final hospital diagnoses was similar (35.9 vs. 38.9%, risk difference: -3.0, 95% CI: -10.4 to 4.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A POCUS-driven diagnostic pathway increased early diagnostic certainty, but not diagnostic certainty at the time of patient disposition. This was reflected in a higher initial diagnostic probability for the primary diagnosis and greater concordance between the primary tentative diagnoses recorded in the paired surveys.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"272-281"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001331","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and importance: In emergency department (ED) patients with dyspnea, diagnostic uncertainty has been linked to poorer outcomes. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may help reduce this uncertainty.
Objective: To explore how POCUS influences ED physicians' diagnostic thinking and perceived uncertainty.
Design, settings, and participants: This preplanned substudy of a randomized controlled trial across 10 Danish EDs compared diagnostic pathways with vs. without focused lung and cardiac ultrasound.
Outcomes measure and analysis: Paired physician surveys and electronic health record data were used to evaluate predefined outcomes: (a) physicians' experienced benefit of diagnostic tests; (b) the number of differential diagnoses; (c) posttest probability estimates; (d) concurrent treatment; and (e) concordance between tentative diagnoses. The primary outcome of the parent trial was discharge alive within 24 h; this substudy focused on early diagnostic reasoning and certainty.
Main results: Between 25 January 2023 and 23 August 2024, 40 physicians enrolled 674 patients. The median number of differential diagnoses was similar between groups [intervention: 3 (interquartile range - IQR: 2-4); control: 3 (IQR: 2-4)]. The proportion of patients with a reduced differential count was 65.3 vs. 72.9% [risk difference: -7.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): -14.9 to -0.3]. The median estimated probability of the leading diagnosis was higher with POCUS (80 vs. 73%). Concordance between initial and revised physician diagnoses was also higher (70.6 vs. 63.1%; risk difference: 7.5, 95% CI: 0.1-15.0), while concordance with final hospital diagnoses was similar (35.9 vs. 38.9%, risk difference: -3.0, 95% CI: -10.4 to 4.4).
Conclusion: A POCUS-driven diagnostic pathway increased early diagnostic certainty, but not diagnostic certainty at the time of patient disposition. This was reflected in a higher initial diagnostic probability for the primary diagnosis and greater concordance between the primary tentative diagnoses recorded in the paired surveys.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field.
Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.