Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18956148›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2009

Evaluation of the lung in children with suspected pneumonia: usefulness of ultrasonography.

D Iuri, A De Candia, M Bazzocchi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D IuriIstituto di Radiologia Policlinico Universitario di Udine, Via Colugna 50, 33100, Udine, Italy. davidiur@tin.it
A De Candia
M Bazzocchi
University of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe authors sought to evaluate the sensitivity of chest ultrasound (US) versus chest radiography in detecting lung consolidation and pleural effusion in children with a clinical suspicion of pneumonia. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-two chest radiographs and 32 chest US examinations were performed in 28 consecutive patients (aged 4 months to 17 years) with a clinical suspicion of pneumonia. Chest US examinations were carried out with a convex-array broadband probe (2-5 MHz) and a high-frequency linear-array broadband probe (5-12 MHz). The results obtained were compared with those of chest radiography.

resultsChest radiography identified subpleural consolidation in 22 patients, perihilar consolidation in 7, and pleural effusion in eight. In the same 22 patients, chest US showed 22 cases of subpleural consolidation but no cases of perihilar consolidation; pleural effusion was detected in 15 patients.

conclusionsChest US is capable of identifying subpleural consolidation with the same sensitivity as chest radiography and is highly accurate in demonstrating pleural effusion. For this reason, chest US may be a valuable aid and possible alternative to standard chest radiography in the evaluation and follow-up of children with suspected pneumonia.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantLungMalePleural EffusionPneumoniaRadiographySensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness IndexUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID18956148
OpenAlexW1602139762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.