ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2018
Screening performance of Ultrasonographic B-lines in Detection of Lung Contusion following Blunt Trauma; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Blunt Chest Trauma: Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Relevance.Cureus · 2026Review
- The diagnostic performance of automatic B-lines detection for evaluating pulmonary edema in the emergency department among novice point-of-care ultrasound practitioners.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Application of Point-of-care Ultrasound for Screening Climbers at High Altitude for Pulmonary B-lines.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- The use of ultrasound in establishing COVID-19 infection as part of a trauma evaluation.Emergency radiology · 2022Observational
- The Role of Transthoracic Ultrasound in the Study of Interstitial Lung Diseases: High-Resolution Computed Tomography Versus Ultrasound Patterns: Our Preliminary Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Lung Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Not Always and Not Only What Is COVID-19 "Glitters".Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChest ultrasonography is routinely used in evaluation of chest trauma for diagnosis of pulmonary injury. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of B-Lines for diagnosing lung contusion in patients with blunt trauma of the chest.
methodsTrauma patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and underwent ultrasonography by trained emergency medicine residents. Ultrasound results were recorded in terms of number of B-lines and the existence of peripheral parenchymal lesion (PPL). After ultrasound, the patient underwent chest x-ray and chest CT scan (as reference test) and screening performance of B-lines and PPL were evaluated.
results147 patients underwent chest ultrasound. The mean age of the patients was 40.74 ± 18.6 (78.9% male). B-lines˃3 had 94.0% (95% CI: 83.45-98.75) sensitivity and 57.7% (95% CI: 47.3-67.7) specificity, B-lines˃6 had 90.0% (95% CI: 78.2-96.7) sensitivity and 93.81% (95% CI: 87.0-97.7) specificity, and PPL had 34.0% (95% CI: 21.2-48.8) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI: 96.3-100.0) specificity. Composite findings of B-lines˃6 + PPL had 92.0% (95% CI: 80.8-97. 8) sensitivity and 93.8% (95% CI: 87.0-97.7) specificity in the diagnosis of lung contusion.
conclusionPPL and B-Lines˃6 had the highest accuracy in detecting lung contusion. B-Line˃6 had high sensitivity and specificity and was easy to perform; thus, it seems that B-Line˃6 could be considered as an alternative screening tool in detection of lung contusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30584571PMC6289153W2895016517What 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.