Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29980450›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2018

Postoperative chest ultrasound findings and effectiveness after thoracic surgery: A pilot study.

Marco Chiappetta, Elisa Meacci, Alfredo Cesario, Andrea Smargiassi, Riccardo Inchingolo, Leonardo Petracca Ciavarella, Stefania Lopatriello, Andrea Contegiacomo, Maria Teresa Congedo, Stefano Margaritora

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco ChiappettaThoracic Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: marco_chiappetta@yahoo.it.
Elisa MeacciThoracic Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Alfredo CesarioClinical Governance, Università Cattolica del sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Andrea SmargiassiPulmonary Medicine Department, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Riccardo InchingoloPulmonary Medicine Department, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Leonardo Petracca CiavarellaThoracic Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Stefania LopatrielloPulmonary Medicine Department, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Andrea ContegiacomoDepartment of Radiology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Maria Teresa CongedoThoracic Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Stefano MargaritoraThoracic Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the information from post-operative chest ultrasound (CU) to evaluate the possibility to use this method instead of chest X-ray (CXR) after thoracic surgery. Patients who underwent thoracic surgery were evaluated with CU blinded to CXR after surgery, deciding if it was useful or CU was exhaustive. Twenty-four patients were enrolled prospectively. The CU allowed a further discrimination of the lung abnormalities, discriminating between atelectasis, infections or hematoma. CXR was required in only 5 cases due to the presence of massive subcutaneous emphysema or absence of lung point. In the remaining 19 cases, CU was considered exhaustive and effective. In particular, CU was considered exhaustive in 67% of cases after open surgery and in 85% of cases after video-assisted thoracic surgery. In conclusion, CU appears to be effective in post-operative management after thoracic surgery and it can increase the diagnostic accuracy reducing any unnecessary X-ray exposure.

Indexed as

Thoracic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLungLung DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsPostoperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonographyChest ultrasoundChest X-rayThoracic surgeryWedge sign

Identifiers

PMID29980450
OpenAlexW2811032051

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.