Trial reportCanadian respiratory journal2018
Lung Ultrasound Is Accurate for the Diagnosis of High-Altitude Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Study.
Trial report in Canadian respiratory journal, 2018. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-altitude pulmonary edema: a case series of four patients from Nepal.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Application of Point-of-care Ultrasound for Screening Climbers at High Altitude for Pulmonary B-lines.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Radiographical Spectrum of High-altitude Pulmonary Edema: A Pictorial Essay.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- The clinical value of bedside ultrasound in predicting the severity of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Should the ultrasound probe replace your stethoscope? A SICS-I sub-study comparing lung ultrasound and pulmonary auscultation in the critically ill.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE). Background: LUS has proven to be a reliable tool for the diagnosis of pulmonary diseases, including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and pneumothorax. LUS also has potential for the diagnosis of HAPE. However, the actual diagnostic value of LUS for HAPE is still unknown. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using LUS for the diagnosis of HAPE. Materials and Methods: A prospective clinical research study of adult HAPE patients was conducted. LUS and chest X-ray (CXR) were performed in patients with suspected HAPE before and after treatment, and pulmonary moist rales were recorded concurrently. The diagnostic value of LUS, CXR, and moist rales for HAPE (i.e., their sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) were assessed, and the results were compared. The gold standard was the final diagnosis. Results: In total, 148 patients were enrolled in the study, 126 of which were diagnosed with HAPE (85.14%). Before treatment, the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for HAPE was as follows: sensitivity, 98.41% (95% confidence interval (CI) 100.60-96.23%); specificity, 90.91% (95% CI 102.92-78.90%). LUS had higher sensitivity (0.98 vs. 0.81, Conclusion: The results indicate that LUS is a reliable method for the diagnosis and surveillance of HAPE. This trial is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR-DDD-16009841).
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.