ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2021
Are pocket sized ultrasound devices sufficient in the evaluation of lung ultrasound patterns and aeration scoring in pulmonary ICU patients?
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standard to Handheld: A New Wave in Thoracic Ultrasound and Patient Care-A Direct Comparison of Portable Handheld Against Standard in Thoracic Ultrasound.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Point-of-care ultrasound use in COVID-19: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Review
- The use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19.ERJ open research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a practical diagnostic tool for several lung pathologies. Pocket sized USG devices (PSUDs) are more affordable, accessible, practical, and learning to use them is easier than standard ultrasound devices (SUDs). Their capability in image quality have been found as comparable with standard USG machines. Studies have been showing that these devices can be useful as much as SUDs in the evaluation of heart, abdomen, vascular structures, diaphragm and optic nerve. The aim of this study is to compare PSUD with a standard ultrasound devices (SUD) in the evaluation of LUS patterns such as alveolar, interstitial syndromes and lung aeration score (LAS). Study performed in an University Hospital Pulmonary ICU. All patients older than 18 years old were included in this study. The sector probe of SUD (Vivid-Q) and PSUD (Vscan) were used for investigation of A lines, interstitial (B lines), alveolar syndromes (consolidation, hepatisation, air bronchograms) and pleural effusion. 33 patients were included in the study. When PSUD was compared with SUD in terms of total B2 count, and LAS in the right, left and both lung, there was an agreement without proportional bias according to Bland Altman test. There was also good inter class correlation coefficient value as greater than 0.8 and 0.7 between two physicians in terms of counting of total B1, B2, total B lines and calculating of total LAS for SUD and PSUD respectively. PSUDs is a reliable and valid method for evaluation of LUS patterns like SUDs.
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.