Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38261109›Full record

ReviewThe ultrasound journal2024

Advancement in pleura effusion diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of point-of-care ultrasound versus radiographic thoracic imaging.

Hany A Zaki, Bilal Albaroudi, Eman E Shaban, Ahmed Shaban, Mohamed Elgassim, Nood Dhafi Almarri, Kaleem Basharat, Aftab Mohammad Azad

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The ultrasound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
19.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Neonatal point-of-care ultrasound-guidelines for training, credentialing and quality assurance.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Advanced imaging techniques and artificial intelligence in pleural diseases: a narrative review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hany A ZakiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3994-7088
Bilal AlbaroudiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. baroudi.bilal@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7728-8394
Eman E ShabanDepartment of Cardiology, Al Jufairi Diagnosis and Treatment, MOH, Doha, Qatar.
Ahmed ShabanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mansoura General Hospital, Mansoura, Egypt.
Mohamed ElgassimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Nood Dhafi AlmarriDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Kaleem BasharatDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Aftab Mohammad AzadDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Hamad Medical Corporation · QAMansoura University Hospital · EGWeill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPleural effusion is a fluid buildup in the pleural space that mostly result from congestive heart failure, bacterial pneumonia, malignancy, and pulmonary embolism. The diagnosis of this condition can be challenging as it presents symptoms that may overlap with other conditions; therefore, imaging diagnostic tools such as chest x-ray/radiograph (CXR), point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), and computed tomography (CT) have been employed to make an accurate diagnosis. Although POCUS has high diagnostic accuracy, it is yet to be considered a first-line diagnostic tool as most physicians use radiography. Therefore, the current meta-analysis was designed to compare POCUS to chest radiography.

methodsn extended search for studies related to our topic was done on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) was performed on all eligible articles obtained from the databases. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and CXR was performed using STATA 16 software.

resultsOur search yielded 1642 articles, of which only 18 were eligible for inclusion and analysis. The pooled analysis showed that POCUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR (94.54% (95% CI 91.74-97.34) vs. 67.68% (95% CI 58.29-77.08) and 97.88% (95% CI 95.77-99.99) vs. 85.30% (95% CI 80.06-90.54) sensitivity and specificity, respectively). A subgroup analysis based on the position of patients during examinations showed that POCUS carried out in supine and upright positions had higher specificity than other POCUS positions (99%). In comparison, lateral decubitus CXR had higher sensitivity (96%) and specificity (99%) than the other CXR positions. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that CXR had higher specificity in studies that included more than 100 patients (92.74% (95% CI 85.41-100). Moreover, CXR tends to have a higher diagnostic accuracy when other CXR positions are used as reference tests (93.38% (95% CI 86.30-100) and 98.51% (95% CI 94.65-100) sensitivity and specificity, respectively).

conclusionPOCUS as an imaging modality has higher diagnostic accuracy than CXR in detecting pleural effusion. Moreover, the accuracy is still high even when performed by physicians with less POCUS training. Therefore, we suggest it is considered a first-line imaging tool for diagnosing pleural effusion at the patients' bedside.

Indexed as

Chest X-rayDiagnostic imagingEmergency medicineMeta-analysisPleural effusionPoint-of-care systemsSensitivitySpecificitySystematic reviewUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID38261109
PMCPMC10805747
OpenAlexW4391135282

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.