system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Aged, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Cardiology Service, Hospital, Clinical Competence, Confidence Intervals, Denmark, Dilatation, Pathologic, False Positive Reactions, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pericardial Effusion, Point-of-Care Systems, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Single-Blind Method, Ultrasonography, Ventricular Dysfunction, Left, Ventricular Dysfunction, Right.
user
Is assessment of cardiac pathology by point-of-care ultrasonography performed by a novice examiner comparable to the gold standard? Context: The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care cardiac ultrasonography performed by a novice examiner against results from a specialist in cardiology with expert skills in echocardiography, with regard to the assessment of six clinically relevant cardiac conditions in a population of ward patients from the Department of Cardiology or the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Cardiac ultrasonography was performed by a novice examiner at the bedside and images were interpreted in a point-of-care context with dichotomous outcomes (yes/no). Six outcome categories were defined: 1) pericardial effusion (≥10 mm), 2) left ventricular dilatation (≥62 mm), 3) right ventricular dilatation (≥42 mm or ≥ left ventricular diameter), 4) left ventricular hypertrophy (≥13 mm), 5) left ventricular failure (EF ≤ 40%), 6) aortic stenosis (maximum flow velocity ≥3 m/s). The examiner was blinded to the patients' medical history and results from previous echocardiographic examinations. Results from the interpreted point-of-care ultrasonography examination were compared with echocardiographic diagnosis made by a specialist in cardiology. A total of 102 medical and surgical patients were included. Assessments were made in six categories totalling 612 assessments. There was agreement between the novice examiner and the specialist in 95.6% of the cases; overall sensitivity was 0.91 and specificity was 0.97. Positive predictive value was 0.92 and negative predictive value was 0.97. Kappa statistics showed good agreement between observers (κ=0.88).
assistant
This study showed that a novice examiner was able to detect common and significant heart pathology in six different categories with good accuracy using POC ultrasonography. Final Decision: yes