PneumoniaNCT01654887
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Lung Ultrasound Compared to Chest X-ray for Diagnosing Pneumonia in the Emergency Department
A study testing Lung Ultrasound and Chest X-Ray in people with Pneumonia, run by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The primary objective of this study is to determine if lung ultrasound (LUS) can replace chest x-ray (CXR) when evaluating patients with possible pneumonia. Specifically, we are looking for an overall reduction of CXR when LUS is used first. Our null hypothesis is that LUS cannot replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages Up to 21 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Pneumonia
- What is being tested?
- Lung Ultrasound and Chest X-Ray
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 191 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2012to Jul 2013
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Up to 21 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- All patients who present to the ED with respiratory symptoms suspicious for pneumonia
- In whom the treating physician believes would benefit from diagnostic imaging
Who cannot join
- Patients who arrive at the ED with a previously performed CXR
- Unstable patients with life-threatening injuries who require ongoing resuscitation
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, New York, 10029
About this study
Official title: Comparative Effectiveness of Lung Ultrasound vs. Chest X-ray for the Diagnosis of Pneumonia in the Emergency Department
The primary objective of this study is to determine if lung ultrasound (LUS) can replace chest x-ray (CXR) when evaluating patients with possible pneumonia. Specifically, we are looking for an overall reduction of CXR when LUS is used first. Our null hypothesis is that LUS cannot replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Our alternate hypothesis is that LUS can replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Our secondary objectives include: (1) a comparison of unscheduled healthcare visits after the index Emergency Department (ED) visit between those subjects who undergo CXR first and those who undergo LUS first, (2) an evaluation of the rate of antibiotic use between the two groups, (3) a comparison of the admission rates, and (4) a comparison of the length of stay in the Emergency Department between the two groups.
Read the detailed description
Background - Ultrasound is now widely accepted as a diagnostic tool for use in the emergency department, as supported by the American College of Emergency Physicians position statement in 2001 (revised in 2008). Evidence-based guidelines for point-of-care lung ultrasound have recently been published (Volpicelli et al 2012). Lichtenstein et al (2004) performed bedside LUS on 117 critically ill patients to evaluate for alveolar consolidation and compared these findings with CT, the gold standard. Sensitivity of ultrasound was 90% and specificity 98%, indicating that US is a feasible imaging modality for the lungs. Copetti et al (2008) compared the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and CXR in children with suspected pneumonia. 79 children underwent LUS and CXR. Lung ultrasound was positive for the diagnosis of pneumonia in 60 patients, whereas CXR was positive in 53. Copetti concluded that LUS is as reliable as CXR in diagnosing pneumonia plus it has the added benefit of no radiation exposure for patients. Shah et al (2009) found LUS to be superior to CXR in detecting pneumonia. 200 patients with suspected pneumonia were enrolled and underwent LUS and CXR. LUS detected 49 pneumonias whereas CXR detected 36. The 13 cases of radiographically occult pneumonia that were identified by LUS were all less than 1 centimeter in diameter, suggesting that LUS is superior in identifying early and/or small pulmonary consolidations. This particular study found that LUS was able to detect pneumonia with a Sensitivity of 86% and a Specificity of 97%. Additionally, Tsung et all (2009) found that it is feasible to use ultrasound to distinguish viral from bacterial pneumonia, thus indicating another striking advantage to LUS. From these studies, it is clear that lung ultrasound plays a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary pathology and moreover it is possible that LUS may replace CXR as the imaging modality of choice. This study is designed as a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial between ultrasound and chest x-ray for diagnosing pneumonia. The study cited above performed by Shah et al 2009 forms the basis of our pilot data in planning this randomized controlled trial. In Dr. Shah's study, there were no missed pneumonias and no over or under treatment of pneumonia when pneumonia was diagnosed on lung ultrasound.
Study Design - Currently CXR is the standard of care for the detection of pneumonia, however, there is published evidence that demonstrates LUS is as reliable as CXR and even surpasses CXR in detecting small and/or early pneumonias as well differentiating viral from bacterial processes as cited above (Lichtenstein et al 2004; Copetti et al 2008; Shah et al 2009; Tsung et al 2012).
The motivation for conducting this study is that we have possibly identified an imaging modality that is better than our current standard of care. It is our primary aim to compare the two imaging modalities to clinical outcomes to see if subjects in the investigational arm have better outcomes than those in the control arm who receive the standard of care.
The attending physician or fellow caring for the patient will determine if the patient is eligible. If the ED provider clearly identifies a pneumonia on the ultrasound then the patient will be diagnosed and treated for pneumonia without being subjected to the unnecessary radiation of a CXR. However, if the provider does not clearly identify a pneumonia on ultrasound or if the LUS fails to detect a pneumonia and the clinical suspicion remains high, then the provider has the option to proceed to the CXR to assist in the diagnosis of pneumonia. Alternatively, all subjects randomized to the control arm will under a CXR first followed by a LUS, because LUS can often provide additional information that CXR does not as noted above (e.g. the ability to differentiate between viral and pneumonia infections).
- Conditions
- Pneumonia
- Being tested
- Lung Ultrasound, Chest X-Ray
- Keywords
- Comparative Effectiveness, Lung Ultrasound versus Chest X-ray, Pneumonia, Emergency Department
- Medical subject headings
- Pneumonia, Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Lung UltrasoundOther
Also called LUS
Six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded.
Chest X-RayRadiation
Also called CXR
Posterior-Anterior and lateral views of the chest via chest radiography followed by a lung ultrasound which is comprised of six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Lung Ultrasound | Experimental | LUS first with the option of obtaining CXR second Receives: Other: Lung Ultrasound |
| Chest X-Ray | Active comparator | CXR first followed by LUS second Receives: Radiation: Chest X-Ray |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of Participants For Whom CXR Was Not Needed to Diagnose Pneumonia
The percentage of Participants For Whom CXR Was Not Needed (or received only lung US) to Diagnose Pneumonia. The primary objective of this study is to determine if it is possible for lung ultrasound (LUS) to replace chest x-ray (CXR) when evaluating patients with possible pneumonia. Specifically, an overall reduction of CXR when LUS is used first. Null hypothesis is that LUS cannot replace CXR for the diagnosis of pneumonia. Alternate hypothesis is that LUS can replace CXR for pneumonia.
Measured: up to 5 hours
Percentage of Participants Whose Pneumonia Was Missed by LUS or CXR
Measured: week 1-2
Secondary outcomes (4)
Comparison of Unscheduled Healthcare Visits
Percentage of participants who had unscheduled healthcare visits after the index Emergency Department visit between those subjects who undergo CXR first and those who undergo LUS first.
Measured: week 1-2
Percentage of Participants With Antibiotic Use
A chart review and follow up phone call made at 1-2 weeks to assess whether or not the subject was started on antibiotics during the index Emergency Department (ED) visit or at a later healthcare visit.
Measured: weeks 1-2
Percentage of Participants Who Had Hospital Admission.
Chart review and follow up phone call made at 1-2 weeks to assess whether or not the subject was admitted during the index ED visit or at a later healthcare visit.
Measured: weeks 1-2
Comparison of the Length of Stay in the ED
Chart review conducted to assess overall LOS in the ED.
Measured: up to 5 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2012
- Primary completionJul 2013
- Study completionJul 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PneumoniaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 191 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- James Tsung, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01654887
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GCO 12-0428
- Other IDs
- HSM# 12-00153
- Status last verified
- Jan 2017
- First submitted
- 30 Jul 2012
- Last updated
- 10 Mar 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Emergency Ultrasound Guidelines. Policy Statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (revised in October 2008)
Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, Lichtenstein DA, Mathis G, Kirkpatrick AW, Melniker L, Gargani L, Noble VE, Via G, Dean A, Tsung JW, Soldati G, Copetti R, Bouhemad B, Reissig A, Agricola E, Rouby JJ, Arbelot C, Liteplo A, Sargsyan A, Silva F, Hoppmann R, Breitkreutz R, Seibel A, Neri L, Storti E, Petrovic T; International Liaison Committee on Lung Ultrasound (ILC-LUS) for International Consensus Conference on Lung Ultrasound (ICC-LUS). International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012 Apr;38(4):577-91. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
PubMed 22392031Lichtenstein DA, Lascols N, Meziere G, Gepner A. Ultrasound diagnosis of alveolar consolidation in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Feb;30(2):276-281. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-2075-6. Epub 2004 Jan 13.
PubMed 14722643Copetti R, Cattarossi L. Ultrasound diagnosis of pneumonia in children. Radiol Med. 2008 Mar;113(2):190-8. doi: 10.1007/s11547-008-0247-8. Epub 2008 Apr 2. English, Italian.
PubMed 18386121Shah et al. "The Feasibility of Diagnosing Pediatric Pneumonia Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound." Pediatric Emergency Care. American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Emergency Medicine, Scientific Abstract Presentations, AAP National Conference and Exhibition, October 16, 2009 Y Washington, DC. Ped Emerg Care. Volume 25(10), October 2009, pp 704-712.
Tsung JW, Kessler DO, Shah VP. Prospective application of clinician-performed lung ultrasonography during the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic: distinguishing viral from bacterial pneumonia. Crit Ultrasound J. 2012 Jul 10;4(1):16. doi: 10.1186/2036-7902-4-16.
PubMed 22862998Jones BP, Tay ET, Elikashvili I, Sanders JE, Paul AZ, Nelson BP, Spina LA, Tsung JW. Feasibility and Safety of Substituting Lung Ultrasonography for Chest Radiography When Diagnosing Pneumonia in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Chest. 2016 Jul;150(1):131-8. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.643. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
PubMed 26923626
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Mar 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Effectiveness of Lung Ultrasound vs. Chest X-ray for the Diagnosis of Pneumonia in the Emergency Department
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01654887
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- GCO 12-0428
- Conditions
- Pneumonia
- Keywords
- Comparative Effectiveness, Lung Ultrasound versus Chest X-ray, Pneumonia, Emergency Department
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 191 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2012
- Primary completion
- Jul 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 10 Mar 2017
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary objective of this study is to determine if lung ultrasound (LUS) can replace chest x-ray (CXR) when evaluating patients with possible pneumonia. Specifically, we are looking for an overall reduction of CXR when LUS is used first. Our null hypothesis is that LUS cannot replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Our alternate hypothesis is that LUS can replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Our secondary objectives include: (1) a comparison of unscheduled healthcare visits after the index Emergency Department (ED) visit between those subjects who undergo CXR first and those who undergo LUS first, (2) an evaluation of the rate of antibiotic use between the two groups, (3) a comparison of the admission rates, and (4) a comparison of the length of stay in the Emergency Department between the two groups.
Detailed description
Background - Ultrasound is now widely accepted as a diagnostic tool for use in the emergency department, as supported by the American College of Emergency Physicians position statement in 2001 (revised in 2008). Evidence-based guidelines for point-of-care lung ultrasound have recently been published (Volpicelli et al 2012). Lichtenstein et al (2004) performed bedside LUS on 117 critically ill patients to evaluate for alveolar consolidation and compared these findings with CT, the gold standard. Sensitivity of ultrasound was 90% and specificity 98%, indicating that US is a feasible imaging modality for the lungs. Copetti et al (2008) compared the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and CXR in children with suspected pneumonia. 79 children underwent LUS and CXR. Lung ultrasound was positive for the diagnosis of pneumonia in 60 patients, whereas CXR was positive in 53. Copetti concluded that LUS is as reliable as CXR in diagnosing pneumonia plus it has the added benefit of no radiation exposure for patients. Shah et al (2009) found LUS to be superior to CXR in detecting pneumonia. 200 patients with suspected pneumonia were enrolled and underwent LUS and CXR. LUS detected 49 pneumonias whereas CXR detected 36. The 13 cases of radiographically occult pneumonia that were identified by LUS were all less than 1 centimeter in diameter, suggesting that LUS is superior in identifying early and/or small pulmonary consolidations. This particular study found that LUS was able to detect pneumonia with a Sensitivity of 86% and a Specificity of 97%. Additionally, Tsung et all (2009) found that it is feasible to use ultrasound to distinguish viral from bacterial pneumonia, thus indicating another striking advantage to LUS. From these studies, it is clear that lung ultrasound plays a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary pathology and moreover it is possible that LUS may replace CXR as the imaging modality of choice. This study is designed as a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial between ultrasound and chest x-ray for diagnosing pneumonia. The study cited above performed by Shah et al 2009 forms the basis of our pilot data in planning this randomized controlled trial. In Dr. Shah's study, there were no missed pneumonias and no over or under treatment of pneumonia when pneumonia was diagnosed on lung ultrasound.
Study Design - Currently CXR is the standard of care for the detection of pneumonia, however, there is published evidence that demonstrates LUS is as reliable as CXR and even surpasses CXR in detecting small and/or early pneumonias as well differentiating viral from bacterial processes as cited above (Lichtenstein et al 2004; Copetti et al 2008; Shah et al 2009; Tsung et al 2012).
The motivation for conducting this study is that we have possibly identified an imaging modality that is better than our current standard of care. It is our primary aim to compare the two imaging modalities to clinical outcomes to see if subjects in the investigational arm have better outcomes than those in the control arm who receive the standard of care.
The attending physician or fellow caring for the patient will determine if the patient is eligible. If the ED provider clearly identifies a pneumonia on the ultrasound then the patient will be diagnosed and treated for pneumonia without being subjected to the unnecessary radiation of a CXR. However, if the provider does not clearly identify a pneumonia on ultrasound or if the LUS fails to detect a pneumonia and the clinical suspicion remains high, then the provider has the option to proceed to the CXR to assist in the diagnosis of pneumonia. Alternatively, all subjects randomized to the control arm will under a CXR first followed by a LUS, because LUS can often provide additional information that CXR does not as noted above (e.g. the ability to differentiate between viral and pneumonia infections).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Lung Ultrasound | Experimental | Other: Lung UltrasoundLUS first with the option of obtaining CXR second |
| Chest X-Ray | Active comparator | Radiation: Chest X-RayCXR first followed by LUS second |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- Up to 21 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- All patients who present to the ED with respiratory symptoms suspicious for pneumonia
- In whom the treating physician believes would benefit from diagnostic imaging
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patients who arrive at the ED with a previously performed CXR
- Unstable patients with life-threatening injuries who require ongoing resuscitation
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Lung UltrasoundAlso: LUSSix anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded. | Other | Lung Ultrasound |
| Chest X-RayAlso: CXRPosterior-Anterior and lateral views of the chest via chest radiography followed by a lung ultrasound which is comprised of six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded. | Radiation | Chest X-Ray |
Primary outcome
Percentage of Participants For Whom CXR Was Not Needed to Diagnose Pneumonia
Time frame: up to 5 hours
The percentage of Participants For Whom CXR Was Not Needed (or received only lung US) to Diagnose Pneumonia. The primary objective of this study is to determine if it is possible for lung ultrasound (LUS) to replace chest x-ray (CXR) when evaluating patients with possible pneumonia. Specifically, an overall reduction of CXR when LUS is used first. Null hypothesis is that LUS cannot replace CXR for the diagnosis of pneumonia. Alternate hypothesis is that LUS can replace CXR for pneumonia.
Percentage of Participants Whose Pneumonia Was Missed by LUS or CXR
Time frame: week 1-2
4 secondary outcomes
Comparison of Unscheduled Healthcare Visits
Time frame: week 1-2
Percentage of Participants With Antibiotic Use
Time frame: weeks 1-2
Percentage of Participants Who Had Hospital Admission.
Time frame: weeks 1-2
Comparison of the Length of Stay in the ED
Time frame: up to 5 hours
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Mar 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- BackgroundEmergency Ultrasound Guidelines. Policy Statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (revised in October 2008)
- Background: PubMed 22392031Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, Lichtenstein DA, Mathis G, Kirkpatrick AW, Melniker L, Gargani L, Noble VE, Via G, Dean A, Tsung JW, Soldati G, Copetti R, Bouhemad B, Reissig A, Agricola E, Rouby JJ, Arbelot C, Liteplo A, Sargsyan A, Silva F, Hoppmann R, Breitkreutz R, Seibel A, Neri L, Storti E, Petrovic T; International Liaison Committee on Lung Ultrasound (ILC-LUS) for International Consensus Conference on Lung Ultrasound (ICC-LUS). International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012 Apr;38(4):577-91. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
- Background: PubMed 14722643Lichtenstein DA, Lascols N, Meziere G, Gepner A. Ultrasound diagnosis of alveolar consolidation in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Feb;30(2):276-281. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-2075-6. Epub 2004 Jan 13.
- Background: PubMed 18386121Copetti R, Cattarossi L. Ultrasound diagnosis of pneumonia in children. Radiol Med. 2008 Mar;113(2):190-8. doi: 10.1007/s11547-008-0247-8. Epub 2008 Apr 2. English, Italian.
- BackgroundShah et al. "The Feasibility of Diagnosing Pediatric Pneumonia Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound." Pediatric Emergency Care. American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Emergency Medicine, Scientific Abstract Presentations, AAP National Conference and Exhibition, October 16, 2009 Y Washington, DC. Ped Emerg Care. Volume 25(10), October 2009, pp 704-712.
- Background: PubMed 22862998Tsung JW, Kessler DO, Shah VP. Prospective application of clinician-performed lung ultrasonography during the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic: distinguishing viral from bacterial pneumonia. Crit Ultrasound J. 2012 Jul 10;4(1):16. doi: 10.1186/2036-7902-4-16.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 26923626Jones BP, Tay ET, Elikashvili I, Sanders JE, Paul AZ, Nelson BP, Spina LA, Tsung JW. Feasibility and Safety of Substituting Lung Ultrasonography for Chest Radiography When Diagnosing Pneumonia in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Chest. 2016 Jul;150(1):131-8. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.643. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
Related trials for Pneumonia
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Phase I Open-Label Safety Trial of Pembrolizumab for Neurological Post- Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PD1-PASC I)
Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
A Pivotal Safety and Immunogenicity GBS-NN/NN2 Vaccine Maternal Immunisation Trial
Streptococcus Agalactiae Infection, Neonatal Sepsis
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
A Safety and Immunogenicity Trial of OCU500, ChAd36 Vector Encoding SARS-CoV-2 Spike Vaccine Via Intranasal and Inhalational Routes in Previously Vaccinated Adults
COVID-19
Enrolling by invitation
Personalized Ventilator Settings for Patients on ECMO
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Not yet recruiting
Expanded Diagnostic Strategy in Older Adults Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Acute Respiratory Infection
Acute Respiratory Infection
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
James Tsung, MD, MPH principal investigator
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Lung Ultrasound and Chest X-Ray in people with Pneumonia, run by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Mar 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 10 Mar 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of Participants For Whom CXR Was Not Needed to Diagnose Pneumonia (time frame: up to 5 hours). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01654887, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Mar 2017.