ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2015
Diagnostic Accuracy of Chest x-Ray and Ultrasonography in Detection of Community Acquired Pneumonia; a Brief Report.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung Ultrasonography Accuracy for Diagnosis of Adult Pneumonia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparing Ultrasound, Chest X-Ray, and CT Scan for Pneumonia Detection.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Explainable DCNN based chest X-ray image analysis and classification for COVID-19 pneumonia detection.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Point-of-care lung ultrasound for the assessment of pneumonia: a narrative review in the COVID-19 era.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2021Review
- Comparing Sensitivity of Ultrasonography and Plain Chest Radiography in Detection of Pneumonia; a Diagnostic Value Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Part 1: Simple Definition and Calculation of Accuracy, Sensitivity and Specificity.Emergency (Tehran, Iran) · 2015Article
- Evidence Based Emergency Medicine Part 3: Positive and Negative Likelihood Ratios of Diagnostic Tests.Emergency (Tehran, Iran) · 2015Article
- Validation of thoracic injury rule out criteria as a decision instrument for screening of chest radiography in blunt thoracic trauma.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and traumaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChest x-ray (CXR) is the simplest diagnostic tool of Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP), but it has some limitation. Therefore, the aim of this study is comparing the diagnostic accuracy of CXR and chest ultrasonography (CUS) in detection of CAP.
methodsIn the present study, a consecutive sample of suspected patients with CAP was underwent CUS, CXR, and chest computed tomography (CT) scan. Diagnostic accuracy of CUS and CXR was assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios using SPSS 20 statistical software.
results30 patients with CAP were enrolled (93.3% male with mean age of 63.8 ± 18.3 years). Sensitivity of CUS and CXR in detection of CAP were 100.0% (95% Cl: 85.4-100.0) and 93.1% (95% Cl: 75.8-98.8), respectively. Specificity of CXR was 0.0 (95% Cl: 0.0-94.5), while the CUS specificity was not calculable.
conclusionFindings of the present study demonstrated on the higher diagnostic accuracy of CUS versus CXR in detection of pneumonia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26495396PMC4608340W2172028117What 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.