ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2026
Clinical Utility of Ultrasound Guidance and Skin Markings in Paracentesis.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ascites is the abnormal accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity, most commonly caused by cirrhosis (75% of UK cases), malignancy (10%), and heart failure (3%). Its incidence is rising, paralleling increases in chronic liver disease and alcohol-related liver admissions. Ascitic taps are an essential procedure both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Techniques include blind taps, ultrasound (US)-guided skin marking, and real-time US-guided taps. While guidelines support the use of US guidance to improve safety and success rates, there is little consensus regarding the role of US-guided skin marking, where ascitic fluid is identified and marked but the tap is subsequently performed without continuous guidance. This study audits the utility of this practice in a UK District General Hospital. Aim/Objectives: To evaluate whether US-guided skin marking ascitic tap provides clinical benefit in diagnosis and management of ascites. Methods: A retrospective audit was conducted between July 2024 and July 2025. Patients undergoing "US-guided skin marking" were identified through the Computerised Radiology Information System (CRIS). Clinical outcomes, including success of bedside taps and complications, were extracted from electronic patient records. Success was defined as the ability to complete a safe bedside ascitic tap without requiring repeat US assessment or escalation to a radiologist-performed US-guided tap. Results: Nineteen patients underwent US-guided skin marking. Eleven (57.9%) were not marked due to absent ( Conclusion: Findings suggest that this procedure provides limited clinical value, and consideration should be given to discontinuing its routine use in favour of immediate US-guided ascitic drainage.
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.