ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Comparative accuracy of lung ultrasound and chest radiography for pneumothorax detection after cardiac surgery: a feasibility pilot study.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePneumothorax (PTX) is a common complication after chest tube removal in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, traditionally diagnosed via chest x-ray (CXR). Nevertheless, CXR has limitations, including radiation exposure, low sensitivity, and delays. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a safer, faster, and potentially more accurate alternative, but its feasibility and diagnostic accuracy when performed by novices remains underexplored. In this pilot study, we sought to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of novice-performed LUS compared with CXR, using expert-performed LUS or senior-radiologist-reviewed CXR as the reference standard for PTX confirmation, given their high specificity.
methodsWe conducted a single-centre prospective observational feasibility study enrolling adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Novice trainees performed LUS, which was compared with expert LUS or senior-radiologist-reviewed CXR. Primary outcomes included recruitment feasibility, protocol adherence, and image quality. Secondary outcomes assessed diagnostic accuracy, interrater reliability, and safety.
resultsOf 506 patients screened, 60 were enrolled over 1 year. Recruitment feasibility was shown (12% enrolment). Protocol adherence was 98.3%, and image quality was sufficient in 96.7% of cases. Pneumothorax was diagnosed in 19/60 participants (31.7%) using the composite reference standard. Novice-performed LUS identified 18/19 PTX cases (94.7%), whereas senior-radiologist-reviewed CXR identified 13/19 PTX cases (68.4%). Novice-performed LUS showed a high negative predictive value (97.6%) in this feasibility cohort. Interrater reliability was high (κ = 0.97).
conclusionsNovice-performed LUS was feasible, with high protocol adherence and image quality. Lung ultrasound showed high sensitivity and strong reliability for PTX detection in this feasibility pilot study. These findings support the need for larger, fully powered studies to evaluate diagnostic performance and clinical integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42831960What 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.