ArticlePOCUS journal2025
Interrater Agreement of Physicians Identifying Lung Sliding Artifact on B-Mode And M-Mode Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS).
Article in POCUS journal, 2025. 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.
- AI-augmented cardiopulmonary point-of-care ultrasound: a narrative review for pulmonary and critical care clinicians.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Automated Pneumothorax Detection Via Novice-Acquired Ultrasound After Chest Tube Removal: Comparison With Expert Interpretation and Chest Radiography.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Bedside thoracic echography in ICU: new insights for acute circulatory and respiratory failure.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chest point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is a first-line diagnostic test to identify lung sliding, an important artifact to diagnose or rule out pneumothorax. Despite enthusiastic adoption of this modality, the interrater reliability for physicians to identify lung sliding is unknown. Additionally, the relative diagnostic performance of physicians interpreting B-mode and M-mode ultrasound is unclear. We sought to determine the interrater reliability of physicians to detect lung sliding on B-mode and M-mode POCUS. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional interrater agreement study surveying acute care physicians on their interpretation of 20 B-mode and M-mode POCUS clips. Two experienced clinicians determined the reference standard diagnosis. Respondents reported their interpretation of each POCUS B-mode clip or M-mode image. The primary outcome was the interrater agreement, determined by an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: From September to November 2023, there were 20 survey respondents. Fourteen (70%) respondents were resident physicians. Respondents were confident or very confident in their skill performing chest POCUS in 14 (70%) cases, with 19 (90%) performing chest POCUS every week or more frequently. The ICC on B-mode was 0.44 and for M-mode was 0.43, indicating moderate agreement. There were no significant differences in interrater reliability between subgroups of confidence or experience. Conclusion: There is only moderate interrater reliability between clinicians to diagnose lung sliding. Clinicians have superior accuracy on B-mode compared to M-mode clips.
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.