Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020
Validity and reliability of pocket-sized ultrasound devices in measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter in ICU patients.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are pocket sized ultrasound devices sufficient in the evaluation of lung ultrasound patterns and aeration scoring in pulmonary ICU patients?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2021Article
- One-day seminar for residents for implementing abdominal pocket-sized ultrasound.World journal of methodology · 2021Review
- Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: Which Axis Should Be Measured?Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The measurement of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) by ultrasonography (USG) is particularly important for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring when invasive measurements are not possible or are contraindicated. Standard USG (SUDs) devices can be bulky and may break down the workflow. The validity and reliability of pocket-sized USG devices (PSUDs) compared to SUDs for ONSD measurement has not been investigated, yet. We compared the reliability and validity of PSUDs with SUDs for ONSD measurement. 35 patients were included in the study. ONSD measurements with PSUDs and SUDs were performed by two clinicians as three different measurements in both sagittal and transverse axis of the eye. There was agreement between mean transverse ONSD (mtONSD), mean sagittal ONSD (msONSD), and mean ONSD(mONSD) values measured with each device according to Bland-Altman test (p = 0.166, p = 0.135, p = 0.066, respectively) with no proportional bias (p = 0.544, p = 0.868, p = 0.929, respectively). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were found to be greater than 0.7 for mtONSD, msONSD, and mONSD values measured by SUD (ICC = 0.790, ICC = 0.817, and ICC = 0.844, respectively). Similarly, for mtONSD, msONSD, and mONSD values measured by PSUD, ICC were found greater than 0.7 (ICC = 0.763, ICC = 0.814, and ICC = 0.843, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between mtONSD and msONSD (p = 0.441 for SUD and p = 0.893 for PSUD). There was a good correlation between mtONSD and msONSD (r = 0.767 for SUD and r = 0.816 for PSUD). The total variance between three different measurements in the transverse and sagittal axis was ± 0.6 mm. PSUDs can be used with similar validity and reliability as SUDs for ONSD measurement.
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.