Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04127149

Evaluation of Ultra-portable Ultrasound in General Practice

This is an interventional multi-centre study comparing two groups of general practitioners with or without an ultrasound scanner over a period of 6 months. The evaluation focuses on the management of patients for 8 pathologies:

* Pneumonia * Pleural effusion * Renal colic * Hepatic colic or cholecystitis * Subcutaneous abscess or cyst * Fracture of long bones * Intra-uterine pregnancy or extra-uterine pregnancy or miscarriage * Phlebitis The principal hypothesis is that there are fewer complementary exams in the group of doctors using ultrasound scanners.

The secondary hypotheses are:

* There is better patient orientation (emergency care, specialist consultation, return home) in the group of doctors using the ultrasound scanners. * The global cost of the care is lower in the group of doctors using the ultrasound. * Using ultrasound during the consultation decreases the anxiety of the patient. * Using ultrasound increases the duration of the consultation. * There is no difference between the predicted and the real orientation of the patients.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • patients age 18 and over
  • consulting their general practitioner for one of the 8 conditions below

Exclusion criteria

  • patients who have already received an imagery exam for the acute episode justifying the consult
  • opposition to participate

Treatment and study plan

ultrasound scan

Diagnostic Test

The group uses an ultrasound device for the consultation.

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of complementary exams

    Time frame: Two weeks after inclusion

    Two weeks after the initial consultation, with or without ultrasound scanners, the general practitioners call their patients to know:

    • The number of imagery exams they had (ultrasound, MRI, scanner, radiology…)
    • The number of biological analysis (CRP, ASAT, ALAT, Lipase…)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of hospitalisations, specialist orientation or return home

    Time frame: Two weeks after inclusion

    Two weeks after the initial consultation, with or without ultrasound scanners, the general practitioners call their patients to know if within the past two weeks, they have been hospitalised, required emergency care, needed to consult a specialist, or returned back home

  2. Cost of care

    Time frame: Four weeks after inclusion in the study

    After knowing the patient orientation and the complementary exams they had, an estimation of the cost of care is made.

  3. Anxiety score measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y) scale

    Time frame: Two weeks after inclusion in the study

    Two weeks after the initial consultation, with or without ultrasound scanners, the general practitioners call their patients to know the result of the anxiety test they took the day of the first consultation.

  4. Consultation duration

    Time frame: Two weeks after inclusion in the study

    The day of the first consultation, the general practitioner writes the time spent

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Hospices Civils de Lyon

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Pragmatic Evaluation of Ultra-portable Ultrasound for a List of Indications in General Practice

Acronym: EPEMedG

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2021
Study completion
2021
First posted
Oct 15, 2019
Registry last updated
Dec 19, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.