@herstein.jacob @Cameron @shmuelsash @Sameem @Tahseen @Bilal @StanG i never understood this, is this parapneumonic effusion or pleural effusion, what is the difference
@Ahmed7 Yeah this is confusing, I think it is trying to draw a comparison between non-infectious pleural effusion caused by embolism vs parapneumonic. AMBOSS in pleural fluid analysis considers effusion secondary to pulmonary embolism to be exudative, which I don’t think necessarily have to have low glucose/pH compared to infectious causes which you would expect they would.
The issue with phrasing it the way this has been edited is pleural effusion is an umbrella term that includes parapneumonic effusions… Parapneumonic is a pleural effusion secondary to pneumonia, so infectious in nature. So probably better as, “pleural effusion secondary to pulmonary embolism”
I guess it’s pulmonary embolism. Pleural effusion can have any kind of glucose, like for example pleural effusion due to Rheumatoid or Empyema, malignant etc have very low glucose.
This is referring to effusion caused by pulmonary embolism - I think PE means pulmonary embolism 99.9% of the time. We should leave card as is or change to pulmonary embolism, but the suggested change is not correct
Lets change to pulmonary embolism and then push to avoid confusion, i believe we’ve had suggestions in the past asking what PE stands for