Skip to content

Evaluation of the Contribution of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound to the General Practitioner's Overall Decision-making Strategy

The Contribution of Targeted Musculoskeletal Ultrasound to the General Practitioner's Overall Decision-making Strategy for Patients With Suspected Musculoskeletal Pathology: a Before/After Study

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06068595
Acronym
ECHOSTEOM
Enrollment
300
Registered
2023-10-05
Start date
2024-04-30
Completion date
2027-10-31
Last updated
2023-10-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Musculoskeletal; Anomaly

Keywords

musculoskeletal anomaly, ultrasonography, general practitioners

Brief summary

The hypothesis of this study is that musculoskeletal point of care ultrasonography would support the GP's decision and ultimately improve patient management. The aim of this study is to evaluate, in the context of suspected musculoskeletal abnormality, the contribution of musculoskeletal point of care ultrasonography to the general practitioner's overall decision-making strategy, defined according to the following 5 axes: diagnosis (I), therapy (II), patient orientation (III), prescription of complementary examinations (IV) and follow-up (V).

Detailed description

The study circuit takes place in a single visit. 1. The investigating physician suspects a musculoskeletal anomaly following an initial clinical examination. 2. The patient (who meets the inclusion criteria and has no non-inclusion criteria) gives consent to participate, after receiving information about the study. 3. The investigator fills in the e-CRF (appendix III), clinical examination, medical interrogation and his or her decisions according to the 5 axes, which cannot be modified, as the structure of the e-CRF planned in advance does not allow backtracking. The investigator performs the targeted musculoskeletal ultrasound with his or her personal ultrasound machine, following his or her usual operating procedure. 4. The investigator fills in the e-CRF with the results of the targeted ultrasound scan and indicates any modifications to the decision axes.

Interventions

After clinical examination and medical interrogation, The investigating physician gives her decisions in the e-CRF according to the 5 axes: diagnosis (I), therapy (II), patient referral (III), prescription of additional tests (IV) and follow-up (V). The investigator performs the targeted musculoskeletal ultrasound with his personal ultrasound machine, following his usual operating procedure and give/keep the final diagnostic.

Sponsors

University of Lorraine
CollaboratorOTHER
Central Hospital, Nancy, France
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Person who has received full information on the organization of the research and has given his/her consent * Be over 18 years of age * Present a symptomatology leading to suspicion of musculoskeletal pathology * Be able to give consent * Be affiliated to a social security scheme or benefit from such a scheme

Exclusion criteria

* Chronic inflammatory rheumatism (rheumatoid arthritis, spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid pseudo-polyarthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, lupus, etc.). * Subjects benefiting from a legal protection measure (guardianship, curatorship, safeguard of justice). * Persons deprived of their liberty by judicial or administrative decision, persons under psychiatric care under articles L3212-1 and L3213-1. * Pregnant women * Nursing mothers

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of patients3 yearsPercentage of patients for whom the musculoskeletal point of care ultrasonography led to a change in the GP's overall decision-making strategy (binary yes/no variable) of patients for whom led to a change in the GP's overall decision-making strategy (binary yes/no variable)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Frequency of modifications3 yearsFrequency of different modifications for each axis and within each axis
Frequency of diagnoses of post-CTA confirmation3 yearsList and frequency of diagnoses in the case of post-CTA confirmation
Frequency of diagnoses of post-CTA modifications3 yearsList and frequency of diagnoses in the case of post-CTA modifications
Frequency of incidental diagnoses discovered at CTA3 yearsFrequency and description of incidental diagnoses discovered at CTA
Frequency of modifications per patient3 yearsFrequency of different modifications for each axis and within each axis per patient
Frequency of the anatomical sites3 yearsFrequency of the different anatomical sites (shoulder, elbow, arm, etc.) and structures (osteoarticular pathologies, tendon and retinacular pathologies, etc.) concerned
Rates for the examinations and therapies3 yearsthe rates for the examinations and therapies described
Frequency with which CTA3 yearsFor each doctor: the frequency with which CTA is carried out in his professional practice
Time taken to carry out the CTA3 yearsFor each doctor: the time taken to carry out the CTA
Average number of ultrasound prints3 yearsFor each doctor: the average number of ultrasound image prints
Time taken to produce an CTA report3 yearsFor each doctor: the time taken to produce an CTA report
Calculation of the cost3 yearsCalculation of the cost before and after CTA estimated a posteriori on the basis of the consultation rate

Countries

France

Contacts

Primary ContactBoris Gass, Dr
boris.gass@univ-lorraine.fr67467111
Backup ContactPaolo Di Patrizio, Pr
paolo.di-patrizio@univ-lorraine.fr608376920

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026