Literature DB >> 23673260

Abdominal auscultation does not provide clear clinical diagnoses.

Maja Durup-Dickenson1, Marie Kirk Christensen, John Gade.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal auscultation is a part of the clinical examination of patients, but the determining factors in bowel sound evaluation are poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess inter- and intra-observer agreement in physicians' evaluation of pitch, intensity and quantity in abdominal auscultation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 100 physicians were presented with 20 bowel sound recordings in a blinded set-up. Recordings had been made in a mix of healthy volunteers and emergency patients. They evaluated pitch, intensity and quantity of bowel sounds in a questionnaire with three, three and four categories of answers, respectively. Fleiss' multi-rater kappa (κ) coefficients were calculated for inter-observer agreement; for intra-observer agreement, calculation of probability was performed.
RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement regarding pitch, intensity and quantity yielded κ-values of 0.19 (p < 0.0001), 0.30 (p < 0.0001) and 0.24 (p < 0.0001), respectively, corresponding to slight, fair and fair agreement. Regarding intra-observer agreement, the probability of agreement was 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.59), 0.45 (95% CI: 0.42-0.49) and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.38-0.45) for pitch, intensity and quantity, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Although relatively poor, observer agreement was slight to fair and thus better than expected by chance. Since the diagnostic value of auscultation increases with addition of history and clinics, and may be further improved by systematic training, it should still be used in the examination of patients with acute abdominal pain. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23673260

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dan Med J        ISSN: 2245-1919            Impact factor:   1.240


  6 in total

1.  Accuracy of abdominal auscultation for bowel obstruction.

Authors:  Birger Michael Breum; Bo Rud; Thomas Kirkegaard; Tyge Nordentoft
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  The Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015.

Authors:  Toshihiko Mayumi; Masahiro Yoshida; Susumu Tazuma; Akira Furukawa; Osamu Nishii; Kunihiro Shigematsu; Takeo Azuhata; Atsuo Itakura; Seiji Kamei; Hiroshi Kondo; Shigenobu Maeda; Hiroshi Mihara; Masafumi Mizooka; Toshihiko Nishidate; Hideaki Obara; Norio Sato; Yuichi Takayama; Tomoyuki Tsujikawa; Tomoyuki Fujii; Tetsuro Miyata; Izumi Maruyama; Hiroshi Honda; Koichi Hirata
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 3.  Secondary peritonitis: principles of diagnosis and intervention.

Authors:  James T Ross; Michael A Matthay; Hobart W Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-06-18

4.  Comparing the auscultatory accuracy of health care professionals using three different brands of stethoscopes on a simulator.

Authors:  Mansoor Mehmood; Hazem L Abu Grara; Joshua S Stewart; Faisal A Khasawneh
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2014-08-14

Review 5.  Automated Bowel Sound Analysis: An Overview.

Authors:  Jan Krzysztof Nowak; Robert Nowak; Kacper Radzikowski; Ireneusz Grulkowski; Jaroslaw Walkowiak
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 3.576

6.  iApp: An Autonomous Inspection, Auscultation, Percussion, and Palpation Platform.

Authors:  Semin Ryu; Seung-Chan Kim; Dong-Ok Won; Chang Seok Bang; Jeong-Hwan Koh; In Cheol Jeong
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 4.566

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.