Page 142 - Ultrasonography in Prehospital and Emergency Medicine - Rein Ketelaars

Timing
n (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
weight < 90 kg weight >= 90 kg
good
moderate poor Image quality
140
Chapter 6
one of whom was newborn. The age distribution is shown in Figure 6.1. The male:female ratio was 3.6:1. The male:female ratio of the total 2572 patients treated was 2.7:1.
The distribution of timing of the US examination is shown in Table 6.1. The mean duration of one US examination was 2.77 min (standard deviation [SD] 1.30; range 0–10 min). In 2009 and 2010, the last two years of the four-year study period, the mean duration was shorter than it was in the first two years: 2.26 (SD 1.14) and 2.37 (SD 0.86) min, respectively. In 2007 and 2008, the mean duration was 3.02 (SD 1.38) and 3.43 (SD 1.22) min, respectively. One-way ANOVA analysis demonstrated a significant difference between the four years (p < .001).
The quality of imaging was rated good in 179 (55%) of the US examinations. It was rated mod- erate and poor in 82 (25%) and 14 (4%), respectively. Quality was not rated in the remaining
Table 6.1
Timing of the ultrasound examination
Figure 6.2
Image quality distribution per weight group
On arrival at the patient During treatment Before departure During transport
On arrival at the hospital
70 (21) 70 (21) 59 (18) 119 (37) 8 (2)
Image Quality distribution
The population was divided into two groups based on their body weight. For both weight groups, the frequency of good, moderate, or poor ultrasound image quality is shown.
percentage per weight group