Search

Your search keyword '"Julie Jepsen Strøm"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Author "Julie Jepsen Strøm" Topic pneumonia
3 results on '"Julie Jepsen Strøm"'

1. Evaluating general practitioners’ focused lung ultrasound competence and findings in patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia in general practice

Author

Julie Jepsen Strøm, Camilla Aakjær Andersen, Martin Bach Jensen, Janus Laust Thomsen, Christian B. Laursen, Søren Helbo Skaarup, Hans Henrik Lawaetz Schultz, and Malene Plejdrup Hansen

Subjects
General medicine, ultrasonography, respiratory infections, pneumonia, education, Public aspects of medicine, RA1-1270
Abstract

Objectives To evaluate general practitioners’ (GPs’) ability to perform focused lung ultrasound (FLUS) following a training program and assess FLUS feasibility in general practice. Also, to describe FLUS findings and evaluate GPs’ ability to interpret these in adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) when pneumonia is suspected and assess GPs’ perception of FLUS impact.Methods Nine GPs, using point-of-care ultrasound, completed a FLUS training program. Adults (≥ 18 years) with acute cough (< 28 days) and at least one other symptom of acute LRTI, where the GP suspected pneumonia, were subsequently included. All patients received FLUS. The GPs reported FLUS findings, feasibility, and perception of FLUS impact. Recorded FLUS videos from all patients were reviewed by two specialists (Specialist Reference). The specialists assessed FLUS image quality. Agreements between the GPs and the Specialist Reference on FLUS findings were used to evaluate GPs’ ability to interpret FLUS.Results Of 91 patients included, FLUS image quality was acceptable or higher in 84 patients (92.4%). FLUS proved feasible with only two scans not completed. The GPs reported FLUS pathological findings in 51.7% of patients in 78% agreement with the Specialist Reference and Cohen’s kappa 0.56. Focal B-lines represented the most frequent pathological findings. The GPs perceived that FLUS impacted change in tentative diagnosis and/or plans for treatment and/or visitation in 29 (32.0%) of patients.Conclusion After the training, the GPs performed FLUS well. Interpretation of FLUS pathology presence was of moderate agreement. The GPs perceived that FLUS had impact on patient management.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04711031

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Accuracy of lung ultrasonography in the hands of non-imaging specialists to diagnose and assess the severity of community-acquired pneumonia in adults:A systematic review

Author

Pia Sperling Haugen, Malene Plejdrup Hansen, Camilla Aakjær Andersen, Julie Jepsen Strøm, Ole Graumann, and Martin Bach Jensen

Subjects
Adult, medicine.medical_specialty, Blinding, Lung ultrasonography, Internal medicine physicians, MEDLINE, lcsh:Medicine, CINAHL, primary care, respiratory infections, Community-acquired pneumonia, general medicine (see internal medicine), medicine, Humans, Intensive care medicine, Respiratory Medicine, business.industry, lcsh:R, Pneumonia, General Medicine, ultrasonography, Reference Standards, medicine.disease, Community-Acquired Infections, Sonographer, Clinical Competence, business, Specialization
Abstract

ObjectivesWe aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients.Materials and methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.ResultsWe included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or ‘speciality not described’. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionWe found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding.PROSPERO registration numberProspectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804).

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results