ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2020
Lung ultrasonography in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interobserver agreement study among obstetricians.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound findings of lung ultrasonography in COVID-19: A systematic review.European journal of radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Lung ultrasound versus chest computed tomography for pregnant inpatients with COVID-19.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2023Article
- The role of PoCUS in the assessment of COVID-19 patients.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Review
- Review of Machine Learning in Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of imaging · 2022Review
- Clinical and radiologic characteristics of symptomatic pregnant women with COVID-19 pneumoniaJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence in medical ultrasonography: driving on an unpaved road.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Article
- Application of quantitative lung ultrasound instead of CT for monitoring COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women: a single-center retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Reply.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2021Article
- How to perform and interpret the lung ultrasound by the obstetricians in pregnant women during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
- New Insight into Laboratory Tests and Imaging Modalities for Fast and Accurate Diagnosis of COVID-19: Alternative Suggestions for Routine RT-PCR and CT-A Literature Review.Canadian respiratory journal · 2020Review
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
purposeThis study investigated interobserver agreement in lung ultrasonography (LUS) in pregnant women performed by obstetricians with different levels of expertise, with confirmation by an expert radiologist.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at a tertiary "Coronavirus Pandemic Hospital" in April 2020. Pregnant women suspected to have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Two blinded experienced obstetricians performed LUS on pregnant women separately and noted their scores for 14 lung zones. Following a theoretical and hands-on practical course, one experienced obstetrician, two novice obstetric residents, and an experienced radiologist blindly evaluated anonymized and randomized still images and videoclips retrospectively. Weighted Cohen's kappa and Krippendorff's alpha tests were used to assess the interobserver agreement.
resultsFifty-two pregnant women were included, with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis rate of 82.7%. In total, 336 eligible still images and 115 videoclips were included in the final analysis. The overall weighted Cohen's kappa values ranged from 0.706 to 0.912 for the 14 lung zones. There were only seven instances of major disagreement (>1 point) in the evaluation of 14 lung zones of 52 patients (n=728). The overall agreement between the radiologist and obstetricians for the still images (Krippendorff's α=0.856, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.797 to 0.915) and videoclips (Krippendorff's α=0.785; 95% CI, 0.709 to 0.861) was good.
conclusionThe interobserver agreement between obstetricians with different levels of experience on still images and videoclips of LUS was good. Following a brief theoretical course, obstetricians' performance of LUS in pregnant women and interpretation of pre-acquired LUS images can be considered consistent.
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.