ArticleJournal of clinical ultrasound : JCU2022
Point-of-care ultrasound to confirm the position of bronchial blockers in children.
Article in Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of lung ultrasound for locating bronchial blockers in pediatric thoracic surgery: a retrospective analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound to confirm the position of bronchial blockers in children.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe described the accuracy of ultrasound in determining the position of bronchial blockers (BBs) in children underwent thoracoscopic surgery.
methodsWe enrolled 52 children with ASA grade I-III who received thoracoscopic surgery with placement of BBs. Point-of-care ultrasound was performed according to the BLUE protocol. The ultrasound-guided lung sliding sign and curtain sign were used to assess the position of BBs. The accuracy of ultrasound in evaluating the position of BBs, as well as the accuracy and operating time of sliding sign and curtain sign at each examination point were recorded and compared.
resultsThe accuracy of ultrasound in evaluating the position of BBs was 88% (46/52, 95% CI 0.69-0.97). When using the curtain sign to assess the position of BBs, the accuracy was 90% (94/104, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), which was significantly higher than when using the sliding sign (65% (136/208), 95% CI 0.55-0.74) (p = 0.002). The accuracy of curtain sign at the left mid-axillary line-diaphragm and the right mid-axillary line-diaphragm was respectively 96% (50/52, 95% CI 0.80-0.99) and 84% (44/52, 95% CI 0.65-0.95), which were higher than that of sliding sign at upper blue points and lower blue points. There was no significant difference in the operating time between two ultrasound signs (the curtain sign, 13.4 ± 8.2 s vs. the lung sliding sign, 16.2 ± 10.0 s, p = 0.065).
conclusionPoint-of-care ultrasound can effectively assess the position of BBs. The accuracy of using the curtain sign at the mid-axillary line-diaphragm is higher than that of using the lung sliding sign at the anterior chest wall.
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.