ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
A novel methodology for measuring global diaphragm thickness by ultrasonography in patients with critical illness: an exploratory pilot study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundA global diaphragm thickness measurement technique was developed for the zone of apposition (ZOA) using an image edge identification approach. The method was assessed in terms of its repeatability and reliability when applied in patients with critical illness.
methodsDiaphragm thickness measurements were conducted by experienced ultrasound examiners in 60 critically ill adult patients. The performance of continuous global diaphragm thickness measurements was compared to traditional localized diaphragm thickness measurements with regard to intra-observer and inter-observer consistency.
resultsEnd-expiratory diaphragm thickness was measured to assess consistency. For the traditional local diaphragm thickness measurements, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.882 for intra-observer and 0.848 for inter-observer assessments (p < 0.001). The global diaphragm thickness measurements yielded ICC values of 0.968 and 0.955 for intra-observer and inter-observer assessments, respectively (p < 0.001). These findings indicated good reliability for the conventional method and excellent reliability for the global measurement method. The maximum observed variability was 16.5% with the traditional method and 3.9% with the continuous measurement approach. When using a 10% decrease in diaphragm thickness as the threshold for clinically relevant diaphragmatic atrophy, 16.7% of measurements obtained through the traditional method exceeded this error margin, whereas all measurements acquired through the continuous method remained within the acceptable range.
conclusionsCompared to traditional localized diaphragm thickness ultrasonography, the continuous approach demonstrated superior repeatability and reliability. This newly developed methodology may enhance the precision of diaphragm thickness evaluations within the ZOA in patients with critical illness.
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.