Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39618742›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Automated Analysis of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review.

Jonathan Kossoff, Sean Duncan, Jesal Acharya, Daniel Davis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Jonathan KossoffAcute Medicine, University College Hospital, London, GBR.
Sean DuncanOncology, Digital Health Validation Lab, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, GBR.
Jesal AcharyaAcute Medicine, University College Hospital, London, GBR.
Daniel DavisGeriatrics, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceautomated diagnosiscomputer-aided diagnosislung slidinglung ultrasoundpneumothoraxpoint-of-care ultrasonographyultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39618742
PMCPMC11607776

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.