MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247546091 · doi:10.12788/jhm.2940

Recommendations on the Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Adult Thoracentesis: A Position Statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine

2018· article· en· W4247546091 on OpenAlex
Ria Dancel, Daniel Schnobrich, Nitin K. Puri, Ricardo Franco‐Sadud, Joel Cho, Loretta Grikis, Brian Lucas, Mahmoud Elbarbary, Nilam J. Soni

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesQuality Enhancement Research InitiativeSociety of Hospital MedicineNational Institutes of HealthOffice of Research and DevelopmentDartmouth CollegeU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineThoracentesisPneumothoraxUltrasoundRadiologyPleural effusionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive Summary: 1) We recommend that ultrasound should be used to guide thoracentesis to reduce the risk of complications, the most common being pneumothorax. 2) We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used to increase the success rate of thoracentesis. 3) We recommend that ultrasound-guided thoracentesis should be performed or closely supervised by experienced operators. 4) We suggest that ultrasound guidance be used to reduce the risk of complications from thoracentesis in mechanically ventilated patients. 5) We recommend that ultrasound should be used to identify the chest wall, pleura, diaphragm, lung, and subdiaphragmatic organs throughout the respiratory cycle before selecting a needle insertion site. 6) We recommend that ultrasound should be used to detect the presence or absence of an effusion and approximate the volume of pleural fluid to guide clinical decision-making. 7) We recommend that ultrasound should be used to detect complex sonographic features, such as septations, to guide clinical decision-making regarding the timing and method of pleural drainage. 8) We suggest that ultrasound be used to measure the depth from the skin surface to the parietal pleura to help select an appropriate length needle and determine the maximum needle insertion depth. 9) We suggest that ultrasound be used to evaluate normal lung sliding pre- and postprocedure to rule out pneumothorax. 10) We suggest avoiding delay or interval change in patient position from the time of marking the needle insertion site to performing the thoracentesis. 11) We recommend against performing routine postprocedure chest radiographs in patients who have undergone thoracentesis successfully with ultrasound guidance and are asymptomatic with normal lung sliding postprocedure. 12) We recommend that novices who use ultrasound guidance for thoracentesis should receive focused training in lung and pleural ultrasonography and hands-on practice in procedural technique. 13) We suggest that novices undergo simulation-based training prior to performing ultrasound-guided thoracentesis on patients. 14) Learning curves for novices to become competent in lung ultrasound and ultrasound-guided thoracentesis are not completely understood, and we recommend that training should be tailored to the skill acquisition of the learner and the resources of the institution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it