Lung ultrasound: A comparison of image interpretation accuracy between curvilinear and phased array transducers.

Introduction: Both curvilinear and phased array transducers are commonly used to perform lung ultrasound (LUS). This study seeks to compare LUS interpretation accuracy of images obtained using a curvilinear transducer with those obtained using a phased array transducer. Methods: We invited 166 internists and trainees to interpret 16 LUS images/cineloops of eight patients in an online survey: eight curvilinear and eight phased array, performed on the same lung location. Images depicted normal lung, pneumothorax, pleural irregularities, consolidation/hepatisation, pleural effusions and B-lines. Primary outcome for each participant is the difference in image interpretation accuracy scores between the two transducers. Results: A total of 112 (67%) participants completed the survey. The mean paired accuracy score difference between the curvilinear and phased array images was 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6 to 5.4%, P = 0.015). For novices, scores were higher on curvilinear images (mean difference: 5.4%, 95% CI: 0.9 to 9.9%, P = 0.020). For non-novices, there were no differences between the two transducers (mean difference: 1.4%, 95% CI: -1.1 to 3.9%, P = 0.263). For pleural-based findings, the mean of the paired differences between transducers was higher in the novice group (estimated mean difference-in-differences: 9.5%, 95% CI: 0.6 to 18.4%; P = 0.036). No difference in mean accuracies was noted between novices and non-novices for non-pleural-based pathologies (estimated mean difference-in-differences: 0.6%, 95% CI to 5.4-6.6%; P = 0.837). Conclusions: Lung ultrasound images obtained using the curvilinear transducer are associated with higher interpretation accuracy than the phased array transducer. This is especially true for novices interpreting pleural-based pathologies.

Comparing accuracy of bedside ultrasound examination with physical examination for detection of pleural effusion.

BACKGROUND: In detecting pleural effusion, bedside ultrasound (US) has been shown to be more accurate than auscultation. However, US has not been previously compared to the comprehensive physical examination. This study seeks to compare the accuracy of physical examination with bedside US in detecting pleural effusion. METHODS: This study included a convenience sample of 34 medical inpatients from Calgary, Canada and Spokane, USA, with chest imaging performed within 24 h of recruitment. Imaging results served as the reference standard for pleural effusion. All patients underwent a comprehensive lung physical examination and a bedside US examination by two researchers blinded to the imaging results. RESULTS: Physical examination was less accurate than US (sensitivity of 44.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.0-58.8%], specificity 88.9% (95% CI 65.3-98.6%), positive likelihood (LR) 3.96 (95% CI 1.03-15.18), negative LR 0.63 (95% CI 0.47-0.85) for physical examination; sensitivity 98% (95% CI 89.4-100%), specificity 94.4% (95% CI 72.7-99.9%), positive LR 17.6 (95% CI 2.6-118.6), negative LR 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.15) for US). The percentage of examinations rated with a confidence level of 4 or higher (out of 5) was higher for US (85% of the seated US examination and 94% of the supine US examination, compared to 35% of the PE, P < 0.001), and took less time to perform (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: US examination for pleural effusion was more accurate than the physical examination, conferred higher confidence, and required less time to complete.