ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Ultrasound assessment of pleural effusion volume in clinical practice: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Pleural effusion (PLE) is a common clinical condition with a broad spectrum of underlying etiologies. Accurate estimation of pleural fluid (PF) volume can support clinical decision-making, particularly in critically ill patients, by guiding invasive procedures, monitoring treatment response, and informing prognosis. This review aims to provide an overview of the main ultrasound (US) techniques for estimating PLE volume and to discuss their limitations in routine practice. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted, synthesizing the most relevant evidence identified through structured manual searches and consultation of authoritative sources. Key Content and Findings: Computed tomography (CT) is considered the reference standard for volumetric assessment, but it is costly, exposes patients to ionizing radiation, and often requires transfer, which may carry additional risks. Thoracic US has emerged as a reliable bedside alternative, offering high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of even small effusions and showing good correlation with CT measurements. Multiple sonographic approaches are available for estimating PLE volume, including linear methods based on interpleural distances and more complex multiplanar models. Linear formulas are rapid and easy to apply at the bedside, with reported correlation coefficients (R Conclusions: Although US does not replace CT or other imaging modalities, it provides a non-invasive, rapid, and generally reliable estimate of PF volume that complements bedside clinical judgment.
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.