ArticleERJ open research2026
Patient perspectives on ultrasound-guided interventions in respiratory medicine: an international, mixed-methods study.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent decades the use of thoracic ultrasound (US) in respiratory medicine has expanded, moving from the near-exclusive domain of radiologists to an indispensable tool for clinicians in the diagnosis and management of respiratory disease. Despite the increase in the number of US-guided interventions being carried out there is a dearth of papers exploring the patient perspectives of these procedures. This study, which was part of a European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force on US-guided interventions, aimed to explore patient perspectives on these interventions from people with lived experience. Methods: As part of the ERS Task Force on US-guided interventions in respiratory medicine a survey was completed by 37 patients and in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with three patients about their experiences of US-guided thoracic procedures, including thoracentesis, chest drain insertion, indwelling pleural catheter insertion and percutaneous lung biopsy. Results: Key findings showed that time to discuss and having an opportunity to ask questions prior to the procedure was valued by patients; patients would prefer not to have the procedure on the ward; communicating throughout the procedure was calming and reassuring; and, finally, patients were worried about accidently removing their chest drains and found it difficult to get comfortable with a chest drain inserted. Conclusions: This small study revealed a number of important considerations for patients when carrying out these commonly performed US-guided procedures. These should be taken into account by healthcare professionals and providers. More qualitative work is needed to better understand the patient perspectives of these procedures.
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.