Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rapid detection of pneumothorax by ultrasonography in patients with multiple trauma

Open access
Zhang, Mao, Liu, Zhi-Hai, Yang, Jian-Xin, Gan, Jian-Xin, Xu, Shao-Wen, You, Xiang-Dong, Jiang, Guan-Yu·2006·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: Early detection of pneumothorax in multiple trauma patients is critically important. It can be argued that the efficacy of ultrasonography (US) for detection of pneumothorax is enhanced if it is performed and interpreted directly by the clinician in charge of the patients. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of emergency department clinicians to perform bedside US to detect and assess the size of the pneumothorax in patients with multiple trauma. Methods: Over a 14 month period, patients with multiple trauma treated in the emergency department were enrolled in this prospective study. Bedside US was performed by emergency department clinicians in charge of the patients. Portable supine chest radiography (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) were obtained within an interval of three hours. Using CT and chest drain as the gold standard, the diagnostic efficacy of US and CXR for the detection of pneumothorax, defined as rapidity and accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value), were compared. The size of the pneumothorax (small, medium and large) determined by US was also compared to that determined by CT. Results: Of 135 patients (injury severity score = 29.1 ± 12.4) included in the study, 83 received mechanical ventilation. The time needed for diagnosis of pneumothorax was significantly shorter with US compared to CXR (2.3 ± 2.9 versus 19.9 ± 10.3 minutes, p < 0.001). CT and chest drain confirmed 29 cases of pneumothorax (21.5%). The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy for US and radiography were 86.2% versus 27.6% (p < 0.001), 97.2% versus 100% (not significant), 89.3% versus 100% (not significant), 96.3% versus 83.5% (p = 0.002), and 94.8% versus 84.4% (p = 0.005), respectively. US was highly consistent with CT in determining the size of pneumothorax (Kappa = 0.669, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Bedside clinician-performed US provides a reliable tool and has the advantages of being simple and rapid and having higher sensitivity and accuracy compared to chest radiography for the detection of pneumothorax in patients with multiple trauma.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/cc5004

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, M., Liu, Z.-H., Yang, J.-X., Gan, J.-X., Xu, S.-W., You, X.-D., & Jiang, G.-Y.
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2006-08-01
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
R112-R112
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144947223
Cited by
274
References
0
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rapid detection of pneumothorax by ultrasonography in patients with multiple trauma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc5004
The paper
Zhang, M., Liu, Z.-H., Yang, J.-X., Gan, J.-X., Xu, S.-W., You, X.-D., & Jiang, G.-Y. (2006). Rapid detection of pneumothorax by ultrasonography in patients with multiple trauma. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.