Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29931473›Full record

SynthesisJournal of ultrasound2018

Lung ultrasound in diagnosing pneumonia in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daniele Orso, Alessio Ban, Nicola Guglielmo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities for children with pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Entropy removal of clinical features.Scientific reports · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. New International Guidelines and Consensus on the Use of Lung Ultrasound.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniele OrsoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ospedale Civile di Latisana (UD), A.A.S. 2 Bassa Friulana-Isontina, Via Sabbionera 45, 33053, Latisana, Udine, Italy. sd7782.do@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7136-0343
Alessio BanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ospedale Civile di Latisana (UD), A.A.S. 2 Bassa Friulana-Isontina, Via Sabbionera 45, 33053, Latisana, Udine, Italy.
Nicola GuglielmoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ospedale Civile di Latisana (UD), A.A.S. 2 Bassa Friulana-Isontina, Via Sabbionera 45, 33053, Latisana, Udine, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePneumonia is the third leading cause of death in children under 5 years of age worldwide. In pediatrics, both the accuracy and safety of diagnostic tools are important. Lung ultrasound (LUS) could be a safe diagnostic tool for this reason. We searched in the literature for diagnostic studies about LUS to predict pneumonia in pediatric patients using systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsThe Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, SPORTDiscus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2017 were searched. All studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of LUS in determining the presence of pneumonia in patients under 18 years of age were included.

results1042 articles were found by systematic search. 76 articles were assessed for eligibility. Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. We included 2612 pooled cases. The age of the pooled sample population ranged from 0 to about 21 years old. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.94 (IQR: 0.89-0.97), 0.93 (IQR: 0.86-0.98), and 0.98 (IQR: 0.94-0.99), respectively. No agreement on reference standard was detected: nine studies used chest X-rays, while four studies considered the clinical diagnosis. Only one study used computed tomography.

conclusionsLUS seems to be a promise tool for diagnosing pneumonia in children. However, the high heterogeneity found across the individual studies, and the absence of a reliable reference standard, make the finding questionable. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed.

Indexed as

UltrasonographyChildHumansLungPneumoniaChildhoodDiagnosisLung ultrasoundMeta-analysisPediatricPneumonia

Identifiers

PMID29931473
PMCPMC6113181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.