On March 11, our educator-in-chief Carl Alsup will present a meta-analysis by Al Deeb et al. on ultrasound in the ED diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema:
Point-of-care Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema in Patients Presenting Wtih Acute Dsypnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Academic Emergency Medicine 2014; 21:844-852.
The paper is here.
Their conclusions are that (1) moderate pretest probability plus lots of B lines is strong supporting evidence for APE, and (2) low pretest plus no B lines virtually rules out APE, with LR+ ~12, LR- ~0.06.
Probably not too surprising, since most of us regularly use ultrasound in exactly this setting. So does this review validate what we do? And how do you critically interpret a meta-analysis … isn’t the meta-analysis itself is a critical interpretation of other papers?
A brief commentary by Liu, Zehtabchi and Liteplo in the same issue summarizes why we should care and what some of the limitations are in what is usually considered a high level of evidence.
Please glance over the paper (and the commentary if you’re feeling ambitious) before Wednesday so you have lots of questions for Carl.
Thanks.
sbmehta
Latest posts by sbmehta (see all)
- Journal Club for 3/11 - March 5, 2015
- Journal Club - November 8, 2014
- Journal Club - October 1, 2014
0 Comments