Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37701767›Full record

ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2023

Lung ultrasound: A comparison of image interpretation accuracy between curvilinear and phased array transducers.

Michael H Walsh, Leo M Smyth, Janeve R Desy, Ernest A Fischer, Alberto Goffi, Na Li, Matthew Lee, Joëlle St-Pierre, Irene W Y Ma

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Point-of-care ultrasound in the evaluation of STEMI patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Evidence-based innovation in ultrasound practice.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael H WalshDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.
Leo M SmythDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.
Janeve R DesyDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.
Ernest A FischerDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine MedStar Georgetown University Hospital Washington District of Columbia USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6796-7310
Alberto GoffiInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and Department of Medicine University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9658-3903
Na LiDepartment of Community Health Sciences University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.
Matthew LeeDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.
Joëlle St-PierreDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.
Irene W Y MaDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7580-0171
University of Calgary · CAGeorgetown University · USSt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Both curvilinear and phased array transducers are commonly used to perform lung ultrasound (LUS). This study seeks to compare LUS interpretation accuracy of images obtained using a curvilinear transducer with those obtained using a phased array transducer. Methods: We invited 166 internists and trainees to interpret 16 LUS images/cineloops of eight patients in an online survey: eight curvilinear and eight phased array, performed on the same lung location. Images depicted normal lung, pneumothorax, pleural irregularities, consolidation/hepatisation, pleural effusions and B-lines. Primary outcome for each participant is the difference in image interpretation accuracy scores between the two transducers. Results: A total of 112 (67%) participants completed the survey. The mean paired accuracy score difference between the curvilinear and phased array images was 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6 to 5.4%, P = 0.015). For novices, scores were higher on curvilinear images (mean difference: 5.4%, 95% CI: 0.9 to 9.9%, P = 0.020). For non-novices, there were no differences between the two transducers (mean difference: 1.4%, 95% CI: -1.1 to 3.9%, P = 0.263). For pleural-based findings, the mean of the paired differences between transducers was higher in the novice group (estimated mean difference-in-differences: 9.5%, 95% CI: 0.6 to 18.4%; P = 0.036). No difference in mean accuracies was noted between novices and non-novices for non-pleural-based pathologies (estimated mean difference-in-differences: 0.6%, 95% CI to 5.4-6.6%; P = 0.837). Conclusions: Lung ultrasound images obtained using the curvilinear transducer are associated with higher interpretation accuracy than the phased array transducer. This is especially true for novices interpreting pleural-based pathologies.

Indexed as

accuracyimage interpretationlung ultrasoundpoint‐of‐care ultrasoundtransducer

Identifiers

PMID37701767
PMCPMC10493348
OpenAlexW4378576273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.