Utilization of Pulmonary Ultrasound: An Effective Tool in Guiding or Replacing Existing Diagnostic Methods in Clinical Practice

The most common pathologies in medicine often involve the lungs. Diagnosing and treating primary pulmonary conditions promptly can profoundly impact patient outcomes. Recent research has targeted the efficacy of incorporating lung ultrasound (LUS) into practice in various ways. This paper investigates the current literature to delineate if LUS is an effective adjunct or replacement to the current standard of care. The literature review analyzed recent evidence-based research on using LUS in different clinical settings, LUS compared to chest-x-ray (CXR), benefits and limitations, and education needed to maintain proficiency. A survey was conducted to obtain subjective views on the proficiency and benefit of using LUS by current physician assistant students who have yet to enter clinical practice. The survey results may be a marker of students\u27 subjective confidence upon entering clinical practice and may reinforce or negate the usefulness of incorporating ultrasound education into the healthcare curriculum. Search engines used for the literature review include PubMed, Google Scholar, and EBSCOhost databases. The search terms utilized were Pulmonary Ultrasound + Critical Care + Study, Lung Ultrasound + Critical care, Lung Ultrasound + Pneumonia, Lung Ultrasound + Primary Care, Lung Ultrasound + COVID, Lung Ultrasound + Education, Lung Ultrasound curriculum, Lung Ultrasound Efficacy, Lung Ultrasound + Emergency Medicine, and Lung Ultrasound + Postoperative. Inclusion criteria included studies performed between 2018 and 2023 with a p-value \u3c0.05. Exclusion criteria were studies over five years old and did not have data on LUS use or education. The overall findings revealed that LUS has the potential to be an effective adjunct to a wide array of clinical practices. However, there are limitations to effective use that support further research being performed