ReviewCureus2024
Automated Analysis of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diaphragmatic Ultrasound in Fibrosing Interstitial Lung Disease: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Thoracic ultrasound elastography in pleural and subpleural diseases: a narrative review.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Review
- Review
- Artificial intelligence for pleural effusion and pneumothorax detection on thoracic ultrasound: an educational viewpoint on the promise, pitfalls and path forward.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Article
- The Role of CEUS in the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Pleuropulmonary Diseases and Interventional Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- 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
Automated analysis of lung ultrasound for pneumothorax detection is an emerging technology with potential applications across various clinical settings. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy of automated analysis techniques in diagnosing pneumothorax using lung ultrasound images and videos. A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to July 5, 2024. Two reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using a modified QUADAS-2 (the revised version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, with nine published after 2020. Eight studies were retrospective, and nine used physician analysis of ultrasound as the reference standard. Convolutional neural networks were the predominant classification method. The majority of studies analysed the presence or absence of lung sliding. Significant heterogeneity in study designs, outcome metrics, and methodology limited direct comparisons of efficacy. Automated analysis of lung ultrasound for pneumothorax detection shows promise; however, the field is still in its early stages. Challenges identified include the limitations of lung sliding as a diagnostic feature, variability in ultrasound hardware and protocols, and accounting for low-quality scans. Future research should focus on larger, more diverse datasets, standardized evaluation metrics, and robust external validation.
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.