ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2019
Diagnostic Performance of 6-Point Lung Ultrasound in ICU Patients: A Comparison with Chest X-Ray and CT Thorax.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bedside lung ultrasound versus chest CT in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Lung Ultrasound in Critical Care: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Relationship of lung ultrasound score with oxygenation and pulmonary mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients: An observational study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Advancement in pleura effusion diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of point-of-care ultrasound versus radiographic thoracic imaging.The ultrasound journal · 2024Review
- Lung ultrasound is associated with distinct clinical phenotypes in COVID-19 ARDS: A retrospective observational study.PloS one · 2024Observational
- The Rat Thoracic Ultrasound protocol: scanning technique and normal findings.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Point of Care Lung Ultrasound Injury Score-A simple and reliable assessment tool in COVID-19 patients (PLIS I): A retrospective study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Observational
- Lung ultrasound in a tertiary intensive care unit population: a diagnostic accuracy study.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Observational
- Lung ultrasound predicts clinical course but not outcome in COVID-19 ICU patients: a retrospective single-center analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Article
- Lung ultrasound predicts clinical course and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.Intensive care medicine · 2020Article
- COVID-US: A simplified approach to cardiopulmonary ultrasound in suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients in surge crisis.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of a rapid bedside 6-point lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by an intensive care unit (ICU) physician for detection of four common pathological conditions of the lung, such as alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax, in critically ill patients and its comparison with bedside chest X-ray (CXR) and high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax. Volume of pleural effusion measured by LUS and CT thorax was also compared.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional, observational study of 90 adult patients with an acute lung injury score of ≥1 admitted to the medical-surgical ICU. They were examined by CXR and 6-point LUS as per BLUE protocol at bedside, followed by CT thorax in the radiology department.
resultsThe sensitivity of 6-point LUS for detecting alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax was 76%, 88%, 83% and 89%, respectively, which was remarkably higher than that of CXR. The specificity of LUS was 100% for all pathologies, which was again notably higher than that of CXR except for interstitial syndrome for which it was 88.5%. Measurement of volume of pleural effusion by LUS was comparable and had a strong absolute agreement with CT thorax.
conclusion6-Point LUS can be a useful diagnostic tool and is better than CXR in diagnosing respiratory pathologies in critically ill patients. Owing to the comparable diagnostic performance of LUS and CT scan and with increasing evidence in favour of LUS, the requirement of CT thorax can be reduced. Radiation hazards associated with CXR and CT, as well as potentially risky transfer of patients to CT room, can also be minimised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.