Lung Auscultation Using the Smartphone-Feasibility Study in Real-World Clinical Practice.

Conventional lung auscultation is essential in the management of respiratory diseases. However, detecting adventitious sounds outside medical facilities remains challenging. We assessed the feasibility of lung auscultation using the smartphone built-in microphone in real-world clinical practice. We recruited 134 patients (median[interquartile range] 16[11-22.25]y; 54% male; 31% cystic fibrosis, 29% other respiratory diseases, 28% asthma; 12% no respiratory diseases) at the Pediatrics and Pulmonology departments of a tertiary hospital. First, clinicians performed conventional auscultation with analog stethoscopes at 4 locations (trachea, right anterior chest, right and left lung bases), and documented any adventitious sounds. Then, smartphone auscultation was recorded twice in the same four locations. The recordings (n = 1060) were classified by two annotators. Seventy-three percent of recordings had quality (obtained in 92% of the participants), with the quality proportion being higher at the trachea (82%) and in the children's group (75%). Adventitious sounds were present in only 35% of the participants and 14% of the recordings, which may have contributed to the fair agreement between conventional and smartphone auscultation (85%; k = 0.35(95% CI 0.26-0.44)). Our results show that smartphone auscultation was feasible, but further investigation is required to improve its agreement with conventional auscultation.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Pediatric Smartphone Lung Auscultation by Parents: Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: The use of a smartphone built-in microphone for auscultation is a feasible alternative to the use of a stethoscope, when applied by physicians. Objective: This cross-sectional study aims to assess the feasibility of this technology when used by parents-the real intended end users. Methods: Physicians recruited 46 children (male: n=33, 72%; age: mean 11.3, SD 3.1 y; children with asthma: n=24, 52%) during medical visits in a pediatric department of a tertiary hospital. Smartphone auscultation using an app was performed at 4 locations (trachea, right anterior chest, and right and left lung bases), first by a physician (recordings: n=297) and later by a parent (recordings: n=344). All recordings (N=641) were classified by 3 annotators for quality and the presence of adventitious sounds. Parents completed a questionnaire to provide feedback on the app, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 ("totally disagree") to 5 ("totally agree"). Results: Most recordings had quality (physicians' recordings: 253/297, 85.2%; parents' recordings: 266/346, 76.9%). The proportions of physicians' recordings (34/253, 13.4%) and parents' recordings (31/266, 11.7%) with adventitious sounds were similar. Parents found the app easy to use (questionnaire: median 5, IQR 5-5) and were willing to use it (questionnaire: median 5, IQR 5-5). Conclusions: Our results show that smartphone auscultation is feasible when performed by parents in the clinical context, but further investigation is needed to test its feasibility in real life.

Protocol for the systematic reviews on the desirable and undesirable effects of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis informing the ARIA 2024 guidelines.

There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (AR). In the context of informing the 2024 revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines, we plan to perform three systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the desirable and undesirable effects (i) between intranasal and oral medications for AR; (ii) between combinations of intranasal and oral medications versus nasal or oral medications alone; and (iii) among different intranasal specific medications. We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs examining patients ≥ 12 years old with seasonal or perennial AR. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. If appropriate, we will perform a pairwise random-effects meta-analysis for each pair of assessed medication classes and outcomes, as well as a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy of intranasal medications among each other. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This set of systematic reviews will allow for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for AR and inform recommendations in the context of the ARIA guidelines.