FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2620804538> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2620804538 endingPage "1387" @default.
• W2620804538 startingPage "1387" @default.
• W2620804538 abstract "We thank Dr Medford for his thoughtful comments on our article regarding the use of chest ultrasonography (CUS) in the ED.1Zanobetti M Poggioni C Pini R Can chest ultrasonography replace standard chest radiography for evaluation of acute dyspnea in the ED?.Chest. 2011; 139: 1140-1147Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (121) Google Scholar In his letter, Dr Medford expressed some concerns for the use of CUS before chest radiography as a first-line imaging test. In general, we would agree with Dr Medford's concerns if we had proposed the use of CUS in general clinical practice, but we limited the use of this diagnostic tool as a first-line screening modality in the ED. As a consequence, we never proposed the replacement of chest radiography with CUS in the clinical management of all chest/lung diseases. Instead, we presented data supporting the advantages of ultrasonography (eg, less time consuming, absence of ionizing radiations) in the initial evaluation of patients presenting in the ED with acute dyspnea. Due to this limited and focused use of CUS, the training required to achieve clinical competence is probably shorter than the training suggested by Dr Medford. In effect, the American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency Ultrasound Guidelines2American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency ultrasound guidelines.Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 53: 550-570Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (468) Google Scholar propose a 1-day introductory course and a minimum 2-week rotation; a minimum of 150 ultrasound examinations must be performed to acquire a sufficient level of competency.2American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency ultrasound guidelines.Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 53: 550-570Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (468) Google Scholar This training duration seems to be significantly shorter than the training duration proposed by the Royal College of Radiology. If, as suggested by the American College of Emergency Physicians, emergency ultrasonography education is incorporated into the core educational program for all emergency medicine residency programs, in a few years all new emergency physicians will have the required competency, and a critical mass of operators will be available in the ED. Obviously, as for all novel developments, a delay is inevitable before a widespread diffusion of the new methodology is realized. Regarding the costs associated with the use of ultrasonography in the ED, at least in our experience, almost all EDs had ultrasound equipment. However, as suggested by Dr Medford, further studies must be performed to demonstrate the cost/effectiveness of CUS vs chest radiography. Regarding the detection of pneumothorax, several data demonstrated that small pneumothorax can be missed by bedside radiography but detected by CUS and subsequently confirmed by chest CT scan.3Lichtenstein DA Mezière G Lascols N et al.Ultrasound diagnosis of occult pneumothorax.Crit Care Med. 2005; 33: 1231-1238Crossref PubMed Scopus (434) Google Scholar, 4Volpicelli G Sonographic diagnosis of pneumothorax.Intensive Care Med. 2011; 37: 224-232Crossref PubMed Scopus (197) Google Scholar In conclusion, we never stated that chest radiography can be eliminated from the workout of a patient with dypsnea, but our data support the hypothesis that CUS can be a reliable modality for the initial clinical evaluation of these patients in the ED. Chest Ultrasonography as a Replacement for Chest Radiography in the EDCHESTVol. 140Issue 5PreviewThe study by Zanobetti et al1 in a recent issue of CHEST (May 2011) proposes chest ultrasonography as a replacement for chest radiography as the initial imaging modality in the ED. Although the superior sensitivity of ultrasonography over chest radiography for assessment of effusion is acknowledged and in keeping with previous studies,2 there are a number of caveats to using ultrasonography in favor of chest radiography as a first-line imaging test. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2620804538 created "2017-06-09" @default.
• W2620804538 creator A5007688989 @default.
• W2620804538 creator A5009030680 @default.
• W2620804538 creator A5062769386 @default.
• W2620804538 date "2011-11-01" @default.
• W2620804538 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2620804538 title "Chest Ultrasonography as a Replacement for Chest Radiography in the ED: Response" @default.
• W2620804538 cites W2037807901 @default.
• W2620804538 cites W2077485448 @default.
• W2620804538 cites W2161590196 @default.
• W2620804538 cites W2183814072 @default.
• W2620804538 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-1649" @default.
• W2620804538 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2620804538 type Work @default.
• W2620804538 sameAs 2620804538 @default.
• W2620804538 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2620804538 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2620804538 hasAuthorship W2620804538A5007688989 @default.
• W2620804538 hasAuthorship W2620804538A5009030680 @default.
• W2620804538 hasAuthorship W2620804538A5062769386 @default.
• W2620804538 hasBestOaLocation W26208045381 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C143753070 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C2780724011 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C2993493390 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C3019088015 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C36454342 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C529618451 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C126322002 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C126838900 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C143753070 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C159110408 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C19527891 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C2780724011 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C2993493390 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C3019088015 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C36454342 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C529618451 @default.
• W2620804538 hasConceptScore W2620804538C71924100 @default.
• W2620804538 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2620804538 hasLocation W26208045381 @default.
• W2620804538 hasLocation W26208045382 @default.
• W2620804538 hasOpenAccess W2620804538 @default.
• W2620804538 hasPrimaryLocation W26208045381 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W1831664768 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W1974262016 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2028772290 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2029967375 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2068400754 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2360288155 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2405334622 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2435715820 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W2438489360 @default.
• W2620804538 hasRelatedWork W3173868843 @default.
• W2620804538 hasVolume "140" @default.
• W2620804538 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2620804538 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2620804538 magId "2620804538" @default.
• W2620804538 workType "article" @default.