Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41585509›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Anaesthesia-induced atelectasis in a rat model (

A Piskovská, K Kraszewska, M Gajewski, M Skoric, V Jekl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A PiskovskáJekl & Hauptman Veterinary Clinic, Brno, Czechia.
K KraszewskaVetcardia Veterinary Clinic, Warsaw, Poland.
M GajewskiVetcardia Veterinary Clinic, Warsaw, Poland.
M SkoricDepartment of Pathology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, VETUNI Brno, Brno, Czechia.
V JeklJekl & Hauptman Veterinary Clinic, Brno, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Anaesthesia-induced atelectasis has been observed in many animal species, developing during intravenous or inhalational anaesthesia, with or without mechanical ventilation. Ultrasonography of the lungs is a rapid and non-invasive method that has been shown to be effective in detecting atelectasis. This article aimed to describe anaesthesia-induced atelectasis diagnosed through lung ultrasound in a rat model under isoflurane anaesthesia. Methods: A total of 12 clinically healthy, 6-month-old rats ( Results: The LUSS of all conscious animals showed no pathological changes in the lungs. The adapted LUSS proved to be easy to understand and was consistently applied by all observers. The analysis showed a moderate level of agreement between experts in the assessment of recordings obtained before anaesthesia (0.40 < Kendall's tau < 0.59) and a very high level of agreement in the assessment of recordings obtained during the induction of anaesthesia and 2 min after the onset of anaesthesia. Additionally, there was a strong consensus regarding the overall assessment of recordings obtained before, during, and after anaesthesia (0.80 < Kendall's tau < 1.00). Histopathological examination revealed no abnormal findings in any of the animals. Conclusion: In conclusion, anaesthesia-induced atelectasis can lead to marked ultrasonographic changes in gravity-dependent areas in a rat model anaesthetised with isoflurane. The modified version of Oricco's LUSS showed significant interobserver agreement, indicating its potential reliability for thoracic ultrasound examinations in laboratory and pet rats.

Indexed as

anaesthesiaatelectasisisofluranelungratultrasound

Identifiers

PMID41585509
PMCPMC12827072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.