ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020
Reliability of B-line quantification by different-level observers and a software algorithm using point-of-care lung ultrasound.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. 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.
- Bedside thoracic echography in ICU: new insights for acute circulatory and respiratory failure.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Sonographic machine-assisted recognition and tracking of B-lines in dogs: the SMARTDOG study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Comparison of the prognostic value, feasibility, and reproducibility among different scoring methods of 8‑point lung ultrasonography in patients with acute heart failure.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Observational
- Can Dialysis Patients Identify and Diagnose Pulmonary Congestion Using Self-Lung Ultrasound?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical performance of lung ultrasound in predicting time-dependent changes in lung aeration in ARDS patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2023Article
- Inter-observer reliability for different point-of-care lung ultrasound findings in mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Article
- Clinical value of pulmonary congestion detection by lung ultrasound in patients with chronic heart failure.Clinical cardiology · 2021Review
- Feasibility of machine integrated point of care lung ultrasound automatic B-lines tool in the Corona-virus 2019 critical care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
- Lung, Heart, Vascular, and Diaphragm Ultrasound Examination of COVID-19 Patients: A Comprehensive Approach.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2021Review
- The artificial count of artifacts for thoracic ultrasound: what is the clinical usefulness?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Article
- Lung Ultrasound in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Reduces Conventional Imaging and Health Care Provider Exposure to COVID-19.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantification of B-lines on lung ultrasonographs is operator-dependent and considered a semi-quantitative method. To avoid this variability, we designed a software algorithm for counting B-lines. We compared the number of B-lines obtained in real-time by observers with three different levels of experience and by the software algorithm, and analyzed intra-rater variability in terms of the estimated number of B-lines in two successive examinations. Forty mechanically ventilated adult (≥ 18 years) intensive care unit patients were included in this prospective study. All patients underwent two consecutive ultrasound examinations for B-lines detection by three human observers (OB1 = high, OB2 = medium, OB3 = low level of experience) and by the software (OBS). Ultrasound scans were obtained on the anterior right and left thoracic side along the midclavicular line, in the second and fourth intercostal space; B-lines counting for each position lasted 10 s. To assess intra-observer variability, a second ultrasound scan was obtained 15-30 min after the first scan. For all lung zones, the intraclass correlation for B-lines counting between OB1 and OB2 was 0.663; between OB1 and OB3, 0.559; and between OB1 and OBS, 0.710. OBS had a better concordance coefficient (0.752) between the first and the second measurements than did the human observers. Our results show that the software algorithm for B-lines counting is a potentially promising alternative when observers have little lung ultrasound experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31823209What 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.