ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of ultrasound and dynamic MRI for the measurement of diaphragmatic excursion: A prospective single-center study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUltrasound (US) measurements of diaphragmatic excursion (DE) are widely used to provide a non-invasive assessment of the diaphragmatic function at the bedside, especially in intensive care. However, this measurement has never been validated against a less operator-dependent technique such as MRI. Dynamic MRI is the only imaging modality that creates a four-dimensional reconstruction of the diaphragm. The primary objective of this study was to assess the agreement between DE obtained using dynamic MRI with those obtained using ultrasound. The secondary objectives were to define DE thresholds for the diagnosis of DD using MRI and to compare the performance of US and MRI to diagnose DD.
methodsProspective single-center study in which consecutive outpatients referred for a dynamic thoracic MRI were included. This study was conducted at a university hospital in Paris, where there was daily access to ultrasound (US) and extensive expertise in diaphragmatic MRI The DE of each hemi-diaphragm was measured sequentially using ultrasound and MRI in random order, during spontaneous breathing (SB) and forced inspiration (FI) by independent observers blinded to each other. We analyzed the agreement between DE obtained using US and MRI for each hemi-diaphragm.
resultsWe enrolled forty-five patients, aged 58 ± 36 years, of which twenty-eight (68%) had a confirmed DD. During SB, the mean bias for DE measurement was -3.8 mm, 95% CI [-7.1; -0.6] for the left hemi-diaphragm, and 1.0 mm, 95% CI [-3.5; 5.5] for the right hemi-diaphragm. Limits of agreement (millimeters) were [-25; 17] on the left side, and [-28; 30] on the right side. MRI threshold values for DE defining dysfunction were 11 mm for quiet SB, and 38 mm for FI. These thresholds had a sensitivity of 77.7% and a specificity of 77.4% during SB, with an AUC of 0.86.
conclusionUS and MRI provide different values for DE, probably because the measurements were not obtained exactly at the same localization. Nevertheless, diagnostic performances of MRI and US to recognize DD appeared comparable.
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.