For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
13
views
40
references
 Top references
cited by
22
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      2,426
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Chest ultrasonography versus supine chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department

      Author(s): 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 4
      Editor(s): Cochrane Emergency and Critical Care Group
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Publisher: Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Hand-held thoracic sonography for detecting post-traumatic pneumothoraces: the Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (EFAST).

          K Laupland, Rumanasma Hameed, Douglas Brown … (2004)
          Thoracic ultrasound (EFAST) has shown promise in inferring the presence of post-traumatic pneumothoraces (PTXs) and may have a particular value in identifying occult pneumothoraces (OPTXs) missed by the AP supine chest radiograph (CXR). However, the diagnostic utility of hand-held US has not been previously evaluated in this role. Thoracic US examinations were performed during the initial resuscitation of injured patients at a provincial trauma referral center. A high frequency linear transducer and a 2.4 kg US attached to a video-recorder were used. Real-time EFAST examinations for PTXs were blindly compared with the subsequent results of CXRs, a composite standard (CXR, chest and abdominal CT scans, clinical course, and invasive interventions), and a CT gold standard (CT only). Charts were reviewed for in-hospital outcomes and follow-up. There were 225 eligible patients (207 blunt, 18 penetrating); 17 were excluded from the US examination because of battery failure or a lost probe. Sixty-five (65) PTXs were detected in 52 patients (22% of patients), 41 (63%) being occult to CXR in 33 patients (14.2% whole population, 24.6% of those with a CT). The US and CXR agreed in 186 (89.4%) of patients, EFAST was better in 16 (7.7%), and CXR better in 6 (2.9%). Compared with the composite standard, the sensitivity of EFAST was 58.9% with a likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) of 69.7 and a specificity of 99.1%. Comparing EFAST directly to CXR, by looking at each of 266 lung fields with the benefit of the CT gold standard, the EFAST showed higher sensitivity over CXR (48.8% versus 20.9%). Both exams had a very high specificity (99.6% and 98.7%), and very predictive LR+ (46.7 and 36.3). EFAST has comparable specificity to CXR but is more sensitive for the detection of OPTXs after trauma. Positive EFAST findings should be addressed either clinically or with CT depending on hemodynamic stability. CT should be used if detection of all PTXs is desired.
          Article 0 comments Cited 131 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ultrasound diagnosis of occult pneumothorax.

            G Mezière, Daniel Lichtenstein, Nathalie Lascols … (2005)
            Pneumothorax can be missed by bedside radiography, and computed tomography is the current alternative. We asked whether lung ultrasound could be of any help in this situation. Retrospective study. The medical intensive care unit of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. All patients admitted to the intensive care unit are routinely scanned with whole-body ultrasound (including screening for pneumothorax) and chest radiography. The study population included 200 consecutive undifferentiated intensive care unit patients who received a chest computed tomography scan in addition to ultrasound and chest radiograph. Forty-seven consecutive cases of radioccult pneumothorax were compared with 310 consecutive hemithoraces free from pneumothorax in the intensive care unit. None. Three signs were investigated at the anterolateral chest wall in supine patients: lung sliding, the A line sign, and the lung point. A total of 357 hemithoraces were analyzed in this study, 47 with occult pneumothorax and 310 controls. Four of the 47 cases of pneumothorax were excluded from the final analysis (parietal emphysema) as well as eight of the 310 controls (large dressings), leaving a final study population of 345 hemithoraces in 197 patients. Feasibility was 98%. Ultrasound scans in all 43 examinable patients with pneumothorax showed absent lung sliding, 41 of 43 patients had the A line sign, and 34 exhibited a lung point. Among 302 analyzable controls, 65 had absent lung sliding, 16 of them showed an A line sign, and none showed a lung point. For the diagnosis of occult pneumothorax, the abolition of lung sliding alone had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 78%. Absent lung sliding plus the A line sign had a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 94%. The lung point had a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 100%. For the diagnosis of occult pneumothorax, ultrasound can decrease the need for computed tomography.
            Article 0 comments Cited 121 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Pleural ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: review of the literature and meta-analysis

              Saadah Alrajab, Asser M. Youssef, Nuri Akkus … (2013)
              Introduction Ultrasonography is being increasingly utilized in acute care settings with expanding applications. Pneumothorax evaluation by ultrasonography is a fast, safe, easy and inexpensive alternative to chest radiographs. In this review, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the current literature comparing ultrasonography and chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax. Methods We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library dealing with both ultrasonography and chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax. In eligible studies that met strict inclusion criteria, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pleural ultrasonography in comparison with chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax. Results We reviewed 601 articles and selected 25 original research articles for detailed review. Only 13 articles met all of our inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. One study used lung sliding sign alone, 12 studies used lung sliding and comet tail signs, and 6 studies searched for lung point in addition to the other two signs. Ultrasonography had a pooled sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI, 68.1 to 98.1) and a specificity of 98.4% (95% CI, 97.3 to 99.5). Chest radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 39.8% (95% CI, 29.4 to 50.3) and a specificity of 99.3% (95% CI, 98.4 to 100). Our meta-regression and subgroup analyses indicate that consecutive sampling of patients compared to convenience sampling provided higher sensitivity results for both ultrasonography and chest radiography. Consecutive versus nonconsecutive sampling and trauma versus nontrauma settings were significant sources of heterogeneity. In addition, subgroup analysis showed significant variations related to operator and type of probe used. Conclusions Our study indicates that ultrasonography is more accurate than chest radiography for detection of pneumothorax. The results support the previous investigations in this field, add new valuable information obtained from subgroup analysis, and provide accurate estimates for the performance parameters of both bedside ultrasonography and chest radiography for pneumothorax evaluation.
              Article 0 comments Cited 90 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (publisher-id): 146518
                Title: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Publisher: Wiley
                ISSN (Electronic): 14651858
                Publication date (Electronic): July 23 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine; University of Calgary; Calgary Canada
                [2 ]Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research; University of Birmingham; Birmingham UK
                [3 ]Libraries and Cultural Resources; University of Calgary; Calgary Canada
                [4 ]Department of Emergency Medicine; Beaumont Hospital; Dublin Ireland
                Article
                DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013031.pub2
                PMC ID: 7390330
                PubMed ID: 32702777
                SO-VID: 32c9df5f-f149-43ef-84c9-01b056b0bf70
                Copyright © © 2020
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,426

                See all similar

                Cited by22

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors504

                See all reference authors