ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2022
Ultrasound Evaluation of the Diaphragm in Clinical Anesthesia.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research advances of tubeless thoracic surgery for pulmonary nodules: current status and future challenges.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When the human body is anesthetized, the human nerve tissue will be greatly affected, which also affects the breathing of the human body. The respiration during anesthesia is a lack of initiative, and the energy efficiency of the diaphragm in the lungs is very important to the safety of anesthesia. In this paper, the application of the ultrasound evaluation of the diaphragm in clinical anesthesia was studied. In this paper, 24 patients who underwent lung examination under medical anesthesia at our hospital were evaluated by the ultrasound vertical mixed echo method. Through patient voluntary selection and consent, 16 patients were examined with B-mode ultrasound and the other 8 patients with M-mode ultrasound to compare the effects of different ultrasounds on diaphragm image quality. In addition, this paper also analyzes the differences between different ultrasounds and the strengths and weaknesses of diaphragmatic ultrasound evaluation in clinical anesthesia. The suggestions of using different ultrasounds in ultrasonic evaluation are given. The study showed that 16 cases of B-mode ultrasound evaluation of the diaphragm obtained ultrasound images which showed a large field of vision, acoustic frequency between 7 and 18 MHz, and thickness difference between 0.35 and 0.52 cm. In 8 patients with the diaphragm evaluated by M-mode ultrasound, the local features of M-mode ultrasound images were clearer than those of B-mode ultrasound images, but the visual field area was smaller, the acoustic frequency was between 10 and 15 MHz, and the thickness difference was between 0.12 and 0.18 cm. Based on the above data, this paper suggests that, in the ultrasonic evaluation of the diaphragm, B-mode ultrasound should be used to check the patients first, and then M-mode ultrasound should be used to check the parts with poor quality so that the accurate diaphragm quality of patients can be obtained in the vast majority of patients.
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.