ArticleEmergency medicine international2024
Diagnostic Accuracy of Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Detecting Traumatic Pneumothorax by Novice Physicians in the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital of Nepal.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2024. 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.
- Standardized bilateral thoracic ultrasound image comparison as a tool for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: a pilot exploratory study.Journal of ultrasonography · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traumatic pneumothorax is a life-threatening condition requiring vigilant clinical assessment and urgent management. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is considered to be a safer, rapid, and accurate modality for the early diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax. The principle objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of bedside LUS performed by trained novice physicians in the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax as compared to supine chest X-rays (CXRs) and/or computed tomography (CT) scans and/or air leak during needle/tube thoracostomy as composite standard. Methods: It is a prospective, cross-sectional, single-blinded study using a nonprobability quota sampling technique. A total of 96 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with polytrauma and chest injuries within a period of twelve months were included. The diagnostic accuracy of bedside LUS performed by trained novice physicians was calculated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) and compared with the composite standard. Results: The sensitivity of LUS in diagnosing traumatic pneumothorax as compared to the composite standard was 100% (95% confidence interval (CI): 59.05%-100.00%), whereas its specificity was 97.75% (95% CI: 92.12%-99.73%). Similarly, the PPV and NPV of LUS were 77.7% (95% CI: 39.99%-97.19%) and 100% (95% CI: 95.85%-100.00%), respectively. Conclusion: The results of the study showed that the application of LUS in detecting traumatic pneumothorax had similar diagnostic accuracy as supine CXR. Bedside LUS is widely available, portable, and inexpensive. It also has the capability of real-time imaging and can be repeated as necessary with less risk of radiation exposure. Therefore, physicians working in tertiary and rural health institutions must be trained adequately in order to uplift the clinical utility of LUS for the timely and cost-effective detection of traumatic pneumothorax.
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.