Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36337157›Full record

ArticleMedicina clinica (English ed.)2022

Comparative analysis of chest radiography and lung ultrasound to predict intra-hospital prognosis of patients admitted for acute SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (COVID-19).

Jorge Rubio-Gracia, David Ibáñez-Muñoz, Ignacio Giménez-López, Vanesa Garcés-Horna, Daniel López-Delgado, José Luis Sierra-Monzón, Silvia Crespo-Aznarez, Natacha Peña-Fresneda, Juan Ignacio Pérez-Calvo, Marta Sánchez-Marteles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicina clinica (English ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jorge Rubio-GraciaServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
David Ibáñez-MuñozServicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
Ignacio Giménez-LópezInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.
Vanesa Garcés-HornaServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
Daniel López-DelgadoServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
José Luis Sierra-MonzónServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
Silvia Crespo-AznarezServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
Natacha Peña-FresnedaInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain.
Juan Ignacio Pérez-CalvoServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.
Marta Sánchez-MartelesServicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universitario «Lozano Blesa», Zaragoza, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Point of care lung ultrasound (POCUS) has been recently used to assess prognosis in COVID-19 patients. However, there are no data comparing POCUS and chest-X ray, a technique widely used. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis in stable COVID-19 patients. Schalekamp radiological lung scale and LUZ-Score ultrasound scale were compared. Primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or need for Intensive Care Unit admission. Results: A total of 138 patients were included. Median Schalekamp scale was 2 (2) and median LUZ-Score scale was 21 (10). No significant correlation was observed between both techniques. Patients with a LUZ-Score ≥ 21 points at admission had worse lung function and higher concentrations of LDH, CRP and Interleuquine-6. Schalekamp scale failed to identify patients at a higher risk at admission for the primary end-point. Addition of POCUS to a previous clinical model, improved risk prediction (AUC 0.805 [95% CI: 0.662-0.948]; Conclusions: Chest X-ray and POCUS showed no correlation at admission in this analysis. Only POCUS identified a group of patients with greater clinical and analytical involvement. POCUS improved, previous clinical model, while chest X-ray did not add relevant predictive information for the primary endpoint.

Indexed as

Chest X-rayCOVID-19Lung ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID36337157
PMCPMC9618450

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.