-
- R L Murphy.
- Thorax. 1981 Feb 1;36(2):99-107.
AbstractReview of the history of auscultation of the lung reveals few scientific investigations. The majority of these have led to inconclusive results. The mechanism of production of normal breath sounds remains uncertain. Hypotheses for the generation of adventitious sounds are unproven. Advances in instrumentation for lung sound recording and analysis have provided little of clinical value. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in lung sounds. Space-age technology has improved methodology for sonic analysis significantly. Lung sounds are complex signals that probably reflect regional lung pathophysiology. If they were understood more clearly important non-invasive diagnostic tools could be devised and the value of clinical auscultation could be improved. A multidisciplinary effort will be required to achieve this.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..