ReviewCureus2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Detecting Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used in emergency departments for the rapid detection of pneumothorax. While POCUS offers bedside convenience, its diagnostic accuracy compared with standard imaging remains variable, necessitating an updated synthesis of evidence. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for studies evaluating POCUS for pneumothorax detection in emergency settings. Data on sensitivity, specificity, and operator characteristics were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), and a bivariate random-effects model was used to pool diagnostic accuracy metrics. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses explored sources of heterogeneity. Fifteen studies comprising 3,840 patients were included. Pooled sensitivity of POCUS for detecting pneumothorax was 74.3% (95% CI: 55.4-87.4%), and pooled specificity was 99.1% (95% CI: 98.5-99.9%). Diagnostic odds ratio was 104.4 (95% CI: 93.0-112.8), with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 15.1 (95% CI: 5.66-40.38) and 0.028 (95% CI: 0.008-0.095), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed higher sensitivity for prospective studies, non-trauma patients, the two-point ultrasound protocol, and operators with greater training and experience, while specificity remained consistently high across all subgroups. No significant publication bias was detected. POCUS is a highly specific and moderately sensitive tool for the rapid detection of pneumothorax in emergency settings. Diagnostic performance improves with standardized protocols and experienced operators. Despite some variability in sensitivity, POCUS can reliably identify pneumothorax and reduce unnecessary thoracic interventions.
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.