A comparison of different diagnostic tests in the bedside evaluation of @entity158 in the XXXX .

@entity1 @entity662 @entity55 @entity341 @entity2 @entity5641 @entity1151 @entity358 @entity158
PURPOSES: Bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) is useful in detecting radio-occult @entity358 . The aim of our study is to compare the value of LUS with other conventional routine diagnostic tools in the @entity341 ( @entity341 ) evaluation of @entity1 with @entity158 and silent chest radiography (CXR). METHODS: Ninety @entity1 consecutively admitted to the @entity341 with @entity158 and normal CXR were retrospectively (n = 49) and prospectively (n = 41) studied. All @entity1 were blindly examined by LUS and submitted to clinical examination and blood samples. The ability of blood tests and symptoms to predict any radio-occult @entity358 confirmed by conclusive image techniques and follow-up was evaluated and compared with LUS. RESULTS: In 57 cases, the final diagnosis was @entity662 . The other 33 @entity1 were diagnosed with a @entity358 (22 @entity55 , 2 @entity5641 , 7 @entity1151 , 1 @entity2 , 1 pneumothorax). Lung ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 96.97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.68%-99.46%) and a specificity of 96.49% (95% CI, 88.08%-99.03%) in predicting radio-occult @entity358 and significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic analysis (AUC, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.929-1.00) than d-dimer (AUC, 0.815; 95% CI, 0.720-0.911) and white blood cell count (AUC, 0.778; 95% CI, 0.678-0.858). None of the other routine tests considered or a combination between them better predicted the final diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Chest radiography and blood tests may be inadequate in the diagnostic process of @entity158 . In case of silent CXR, LUS is critical for identifying @entity1 with @entity358 at bedside and cannot be safely replaced by other conventional methods.
