ArticleTanaffos2019
Comparison of the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Efficacies of Portable Recruited Chest Radiography with Conventional Portable Radiography in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.
Article in Tanaffos, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn mechanically ventilated patients, portable chest radiography (CXR) can provide important information for selecting the optimal therapeutic approach. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic efficacies of portable recruited chest radiography with maximum inspiratory volume and pause in comparison with conventional portable radiography. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis diagnostic accuracy study was conducted on 75 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Sari, Iran, during 2013-2015. For every patient, in addition to conventional portable CXR, another CXR was performed with mechanical ventilator adjustments (tidal volume up to 10-12 ml/kg to maintain the inspiratory plateau pressure below 35 cmH
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 63.5±14 years. Overall, 43 (57.3%) patients were male, and 32 (42.7%) were female. Therapeutic interventions were performed for only 8% of cases with conventional CXR versus 21.3% of cases with recruited CXR; the difference was found to be statistically significant (P<0.05). The diagnostic efficacy of portable recruited CXR versus conventional portable CXR was 45% versus 18.6%. Also, the therapeutic efficacy of portable recruited CXR versus conventional portable CXR was 21.3% versus 8%.
conclusionPortable recruited CXR seems to be a valuable diagnostic approach for clinical decision-making, with higher diagnostic and therapeutic efficacies in mechanically ventilated patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32607117PMC7309883W3037741960What 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.