Trial reportPeerJ2024
Ultrasonographic modeling of lung and diaphragm mechanics: clinical trial of a novel non-invasive method to evaluate pre-operative pulmonary function.
Trial report in PeerJ, 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.
- Effect of pelvic floor muscle combined with pulmonary rehabilitation training on lung function in elderly patients after surgery for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of medical research · 2025Trial
- Application of bedside ultrasound assessment of diaphragmatic function in preparing tracheostomised patients for ventilator liberation and decannulation: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Combined diaphragm and lung ultrasound profiling in healthy full-term neonates: a study of early postnatal function.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pre-operative pulmonary function testing (PFT) plays a key role in predicting postoperative complications or functional impairment. However, PFT requires the subject and examiner to cooperate and the results are influenced by both technical and personal factors. In contrast, the use of ultrasound (US) for structural and functional assessments of the lungs and diaphragm is on the rise, as it requires minimal patient cooperation. Dyspnea is mainly caused by lung or pleural lesions but may also be caused by weak respiratory muscles. As the diaphragm is a primary respiratory muscle, combining lung ultrasonography (LUS) with diaphragm ultrasound (DUS) may enable a more comprehensive assessement of pulmonary function. This study aims to introduce a novel approach for assessing pulmonary function using a mathematical model based on LUS and DUS. Methods: This prospective study was performed at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between June 2021 and December 2021, 208 patients were recruited and underwent PFT, LUS, and DUS examinations. An experienced physician, blinded to the clinical history and PFT results, performed LUS and DUS and explored the correlations between a mathematical model (ultrasonographic modeling score (U-score)) using LUS combined with DUS and pulmonary function parameters. Univariate, multivariate, and logistic regression analyses were also performed. Results: According to the univariate and multivariable analysis, diaphragm thickness fraction in deep breathing (D-DTF) (odds ratio (OR), 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.83-0.94]; Conclusions: With validation, the U-score through both lung and diaphragm ultrasound measurements may assist in estimating pulmonary function. This approach facilitates the assessment of pulmonary function in patients who may be unable to reliably participate in PFT.
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.