ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Ultrasound evaluation in the postoperative period for surgical treatment of thoracic infectious and inflammatory diseases.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the role of TUSG in the postoperative period and the detection of early complications after surgical treatment, pulmonary resection, or decortication for infectious and inflammatory thoracic diseases, comparing with the standard method (Chest Radiography ‒ CXR).
methodsProspective non-randomized self-controlled study. Twenty-one patients over 16 years of age have undergone surgical treatment of inflammatory and infectious lung diseases. These patients were followed up with CXR and TUSG (performed on the 1
resultsBoth exams demonstrated similar results regarding their ability to safely predict the adequate moment for chest drain removal. TUSG allowed chest drain removal in 30% of cases and CXR in 34%. Statistical analysis demonstrates that both exams have similar capabilities in detecting postoperative changes in the pleural space. However, the authors report that TUSG is statistically more accurate in detecting subcutaneous emphysema than CXR (p = 0.037, Kappa [κ = 0.3068]). The analysis of other parameters showed no statistical difference.
conclusionThe authors conclude that TUSG in trained hands is equivalent to CXR in searching for postoperative complications regarding the surgical treatment of infectious and inflammatory thoracic diseases and can be used as a complement, and not a substitute, to CXR, when CCT is not feasible, or a more urgent diagnosis is needed.
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.