Is Pulmonary Auscultation Alone Sufficient for Clinical Practice

Waldo Mattos, J. Dallasen, A. Juchem, Fabiana Jaeger Douglas da Silva Pinos
{"title":"Is Pulmonary Auscultation Alone Sufficient for Clinical Practice","authors":"Waldo Mattos, J. Dallasen, A. Juchem, Fabiana Jaeger Douglas da Silva Pinos","doi":"10.4236/OJRD.2020.103006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The clinical examination is the basis for the diagnosis and rational choice of complementary tests. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of auscultation of the chest for screening of disease and for predicting the presence of abnormalities in the other domains of the chest examination. Methods: Patients with COPD, atelectasis, pleural effusion, pneumonia and controls were evaluated by two examiners in the absence of any clinical information, initially only with pulmonary auscultation, and then in the other domains of chest examination. Results: 192 physical examinations were performed in 104 patients. An abnormal pulmonary auscultation had a sensitivity of 85.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.1%, positive likelihood reason (LR) of 1.53 (95% CI; 1.16 to 2.01) and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI; 0.2 to 0.56) to identify the presence of any disease, and also a positive LR of 2.23 (95% CI; 1.02 to 4.9) and a negative LR of 0.3 (95% CI; 0.17 to 0.51) to predict additional abnormalities. A normal auscultation showed low accuracy to identify healthy individuals, with sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV, respectively, of 44%, 43%, 41% and 46%. The agreement between the examiners considering normal versus abnormal findings showed kappa = 0.76 for any changes in the physical examination present (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Auscultation of the chest alone, may not be a sufficient strategy to track diseases or establish whether continuity of the examination is necessary or not.","PeriodicalId":83134,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of respiratory diseases","volume":"10 1","pages":"49-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of respiratory diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/OJRD.2020.103006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The clinical examination is the basis for the diagnosis and rational choice of complementary tests. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of auscultation of the chest for screening of disease and for predicting the presence of abnormalities in the other domains of the chest examination. Methods: Patients with COPD, atelectasis, pleural effusion, pneumonia and controls were evaluated by two examiners in the absence of any clinical information, initially only with pulmonary auscultation, and then in the other domains of chest examination. Results: 192 physical examinations were performed in 104 patients. An abnormal pulmonary auscultation had a sensitivity of 85.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.1%, positive likelihood reason (LR) of 1.53 (95% CI; 1.16 to 2.01) and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI; 0.2 to 0.56) to identify the presence of any disease, and also a positive LR of 2.23 (95% CI; 1.02 to 4.9) and a negative LR of 0.3 (95% CI; 0.17 to 0.51) to predict additional abnormalities. A normal auscultation showed low accuracy to identify healthy individuals, with sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV, respectively, of 44%, 43%, 41% and 46%. The agreement between the examiners considering normal versus abnormal findings showed kappa = 0.76 for any changes in the physical examination present (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Auscultation of the chest alone, may not be a sufficient strategy to track diseases or establish whether continuity of the examination is necessary or not.
单独进行肺部听诊是否足以进行临床实践
目的:临床检查是诊断和合理选择补充检查的依据。本研究的目的是评估胸部听诊在筛查疾病和预测胸部检查其他领域异常的表现。方法:在没有任何临床信息的情况下,由两名检查人员对COPD、肺不张、胸腔积液、肺炎患者和对照组进行评估,最初仅进行肺部听诊,然后进行其他胸部检查。结果:104例患者共进行了192次体检。异常肺听诊的灵敏度为85.2%,阳性预测值(PPV)为84.1%,阳性似然原因(LR)为1.53(95%CI;1.16至2.01),阴性似然原因(RR)为0.33(95%CI:0.2至0.56),用于识别任何疾病的存在,阳性似然比为2.23(95%CI:1.02至4.9),阴性LR为0.3(95%CI;0.17至0.51),用于预测其他异常。正常听诊识别健康个体的准确性较低,敏感性、特异性、NPV和PPV分别为44%、43%、41%和46%。考虑到正常和异常检查结果的检查人员之间的一致性显示,对于目前的体检中的任何变化,kappa=0.76(p<0.0001)。结论:单独的胸部听诊可能不是追踪疾病或确定是否需要连续检查的充分策略。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信