ArticleJRSM open2017
A prospective cohort study of thoracic ultrasound in acute respiratory failure: the
Article in JRSM open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of lung ultrasound on clinical-decision making across departments: a systematic review.The ultrasound journal · 2022Review
- Point of care ultrasonography from the emergency department to the internal medicine ward: current trends and perspectives.Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Review
- Reduction of COPD Hyperinflation by Endobronchial Valves Improves Intercostal Muscle Morphology on Ultrasound.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Article
- Parasternal intercostal muscle ultrasound in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease correlates with spirometric severity.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency Protocol for the Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Failure.Journal of medical ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study was performed to assess the clinical utility of a standardised thoracic ultrasound examination when added to standard care in patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to an intermediate care unit. This study aimed to assess the impact on clinical diagnosis, clinician confidence and management. Ultrasound has been shown to have utility in patients admitted to intensive care and emergency; however, utility in a ward setting is unknown.
designProspective cohort study.
settingTertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia.
participants50 patients with acute respiratory failure requiring admission to an intermediate care unit.
main outcome measures(1) Change in clinical diagnosis or additional clinical diagnosis following thoracic ultrasound. (2) Change in diagnostic confidence following thoracic ultrasound. (3) Change to management following thoracic ultrasound.
resultsIn 34% of patients, ultrasound detected unexpected findings that changed or added to the clinical diagnosis. Diagnostic confidence was increased in 44%, and the treating clinician altered the management plan in 30% as a result of the ultrasound. Ultrasound was particularly useful in clarifying the diagnosis in patients with multiple initial diagnoses, reducing to a single diagnosis in 69%.
conclusionsThoracic ultrasound has clinical utility in non-intubated adults with acute respiratory failure managed outside intensive care settings. It changed aetiological diagnosis, increases diagnostic confidence and altered clinical management in one out of three patients scanned. Our results suggest extended utility of thoracic ultrasound in acute respiratory failure to a broader context outside the intensive care unit population.
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.