ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2009
Sonographic evaluation of unexplained pleural exudate: a prospective case series.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound Techniques for Suspected Malignant Pleural Effusion and Nonexpandable Lung.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Review
- Thoracic ultrasound for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.ERJ open research · 2020Article
- Thoracic ultrasound versus artificial pneumothorax in complications of medical thoracoscopy-a propensity score matching analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- COPD is not COPD is not allergy.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracic ultrasound may be helpful in differentiating between malignant and tuberculosis-associated pleural exudate. This study aimed to evaluate its utility in patients with unexplained pleural exudate.
methodsConsecutive patients were screened and pleural effusion was found in 278 patients. Pleural exudate was present in 106 patients and remained undiagnosed after biochemical and cytological evaluation in 40 patients (median age 58 years, 67% men) who then underwent detailed thoracic ultrasound for the presence of complex (septated or fibrous) or anechoic patterns. Pleural needle biopsy or thoracoscopy with histological evaluation were used for definitive diagnosis.
resultsHistory, clinical characteristics and routine procedures including cytology were not helpful in differential diagnosis. Pleural specimens for histological evaluation were obtained from all 40 patients and confirmed tuberculosis in 12 patients, cancer in nine and nonspecific pleuritis in 19. Sonographic finding of a complex septal pattern was present only in patients with tuberculosis (positive predictive value 100%); anechoic appearance was suggestive of nonspecific pleuritis (positive predictive value 65%).
conclusionsThoracic ultrasound is a useful bedside method for differentiation of the etiology of pleural exudate. When a complex septal pattern is found, pleural needle biopsy should be the next diagnostic procedure, whereas with less complex pleural sonography findings other methods should be pursued.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.