Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Prehospital diagnostic performance of emergency physicians in identifying blunt traumatic pneumothorax requiring early decompression.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraumatic pneumothorax is a potentially life-threatening condition requiring timely diagnosis and management, particularly in the prehospital setting where diagnostic tools are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of clinical signs used by emergency physicians in the field to identify traumatic pneumothorax requiring early thoracic decompression.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study in a French level I trauma center from January 2015 to August 2022. All patients with CT-confirmed pneumothorax managed by prehospital emergency physicians were included. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic performance of prehospital clinical assessment to identify pneumothorax requiring early decompression (prehospital or within four hours of admission). Statistical analysis was focused on predictive performance of three clinical signs (asymmetric lung auscultation, thoracic expansion asymmetry, and subcutaneous emphysema) in identifying cases requiring early decompression, using univariable analyses and the construction of a composite predictive score by logistic regression.
resultsAmong 280 included patients, 115 (41%) required early thoracic decompression. Clinical suspicion of pneumothorax was present in 63% (95% CI: 54‒71) of these cases. Asymmetric lung auscultation showed the highest sensitivity (74%; 95% CI: 62‒86), while subcutaneous emphysema demonstrated the highest specificity (79%; 95% CI: 68‒89). The overall clinical suspicion rate across the cohort was 46% (95% CI: 41‒52). A composite predictive score using the three clinical signs demonstrated better diagnostic performance (AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57‒0.69); score = 1 OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1‒3.6], score = 2 OR 3.0 [95% CI 1.6‒5.7]; score = 3 OR 11.0 [95% CI 1.3‒96.8]).
conclusionPrehospital clinical assessment alone had limited diagnostic performance for detecting blunt traumatic pneumothorax requiring early decompression. A simple clinical composite score offers higher specificity but remains insufficiently sensitive to be used as a standalone diagnostic tool; it may support field decision-making as a risk-stratification aid, but prehospital clinical signs alone are not sufficient to rule out a pneumothorax requiring early decompression.
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.