2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can handheld micropower impulse radar technology be used to detect pneumothorax? Initial experience in a European trauma centre

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[9,10,16] The sensitivity in our study was 83.3%, which was relatively close to the one found by Albers et al It was also detected that 34.9% specificity was quite a low specificity compared to other three studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…[9,10,16] The sensitivity in our study was 83.3%, which was relatively close to the one found by Albers et al It was also detected that 34.9% specificity was quite a low specificity compared to other three studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…However, this device is designed to be independent of medical knowledge and usable by everyone. [9] Thus, the possibility of error depending on the person who performed Pneumoscan readings does not seem reasonable. In case the possibility of false positive diagnosis depends on device functioning, the company was frequently consulted with, and it assured that the device worked properly.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Despite low number of cases, we revealed at least a principle advantage of PneumoScan towards clinical examination and CXR in excluding PTX, which could increase diagnostic safety. The results of this study with 24 applied patients underline the good findings of a previous study with 50 patients to assess the diagnostic value of PneumoScan (sensitivity 85.7% (1/7 false negative), specificity 97.7% (1/43 false positive), gold standard CT [13]).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%