Effect of a point-of-care ultrasound-driven diagnostic pathway on diagnostic certainty in emergency department patients with dyspnea: a randomized controlled substudy.

IF 5.4 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
European Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-23 DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001331
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.

即时超声诊断途径对急诊科呼吸困难患者诊断确定性的影响:一项随机对照亚研究
背景和重要性:在急诊科(ED)呼吸困难患者中,诊断不确定性与较差的预后有关。即时超声(POCUS)可能有助于减少这种不确定性。目的:探讨POCUS对急诊科医师诊断思维和感知不确定性的影响。设计、设置和参与者:这是一项在10个丹麦急诊科进行的随机对照试验的预先计划的亚研究,比较了有无聚焦肺和心脏超声的诊断途径。结果测量和分析:使用配对医生调查和电子健康记录数据来评估预定义结果:(a)医生对诊断测试的经验益处;(b)鉴别诊断的数量;(c)测试后概率估计;(d)同时治疗;(e)初步诊断之间的一致性。母试验的主要终点是24小时内活着出院;这个子研究的重点是早期诊断推理和确定性。主要结果:在2023年1月25日至2024年8月23日期间,40名医生招募了674名患者。两组间鉴别诊断的中位数相似[干预:3(四分位数间距- IQR: 2-4);对照:3 (IQR: 2-4)]。差异计数减少的患者比例为65.3 vs. 72.9%[风险差:-7.6,95%可信区间(CI): -14.9 ~ -0.3]。POCUS先行诊断的中位估计概率更高(80%对73%)。初始诊断和修改后的医生诊断的一致性也较高(70.6比63.1%;风险差异:7.5,95% CI: 0.1-15.0),而与最终医院诊断的一致性相似(35.9比38.9%,风险差异:-3.0,95% CI: -10.4至4.4)。结论:pocus驱动的诊断途径增加了早期诊断的确定性,但在患者处置时没有增加诊断的确定性。这反映在原发性诊断的较高初始诊断概率和配对调查中记录的原发性初步诊断之间的较大一致性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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. ​
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书