ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Narrative review of chest wall ultrasound: a practical approach.
Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Directed acoustic shadow enhancement for pre-incision ultrasound localization and precise incision planning in multiple rib fractures undergoing SSRF: a retrospective comparative feasibility study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) diagnosis of rib fractures.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2025Review
- Intercostal Artery Screening with Color Doppler Thoracic Ultrasound in Pleural Procedures: A Potential Yet Underexplored Imaging Modality for Minimizing Iatrogenic Bleeding Risk in Interventional Pulmonology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Traditionally, literature on thoracic ultrasound has focused on the study of pleural and pulmonary pathology. However, given the superficial location of thoracic wall structures, ultrasound proves to be an excellent technique for their examination. This study aims to evaluate the clinical utility of thoracic ultrasound in diagnosing various thoracic wall pathologies and to illustrate the primary diagnoses that can be achieved. Methods: We performed a literature search in January 2024 in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles on thoracic ultrasound. Relevant articles were selected and synthesized in a narrative form. Key Content and Findings: Thoracic ultrasound has emerged as a powerful diagnostic tool, especially when combined with a thorough clinical history. It allows for rapid, inexpensive, and safe resolution of a wide range of common clinical uncertainties across all levels of healthcare. In emergency contexts, it excels in the detection of rib fractures, demonstrating superior capability compared to traditional chest X-rays and similar efficacy to computed tomography (CT) scans. Additionally, thoracic ultrasound is highly effective in evaluating tumors, often providing accurate diagnoses without the need for further studies. It also aids in differentiating pathologies that may require more advanced imaging such as CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Moreover, thoracic ultrasound plays a valuable role in the initial assessment of infectious and degenerative conditions. Conclusions: Thoracic ultrasound is a versatile and efficient diagnostic tool for examining thoracic wall structures. Its applications are particularly valuable in trauma assessment, tumor evaluation, and the differentiation of various pathologies. The rapid, cost-effective, and safe nature of this technique highlights its potential as a primary diagnostic tool in a wide variety of clinical settings.
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.