SynthesisChest2023
Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound for Acute Chest Syndrome in Sickle Cell Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Chest, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis and Management of Acute Chest Syndrome in Children With Sickle Cell Disease.American journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Emergency care for children with sickle cell disease: a focus on pain and fever.Expert review of hematology · 2025Review
- Lung ultrasound score to predict development of acute chest syndrome in children with sickle cell disease.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy · 2024Article
- Respiratory management of acute chest syndrome in children with sickle cell disease.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute chest syndrome (ACS) is a leading cause of death in patients with sickle cell disease. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is emerging as a point-of-care method to diagnose ACS, allowing for more rapid diagnosis in the ED setting and sparing patients from ionizing radiation exposure. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for ACS diagnosis, using the current reference standard of chest radiography? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were used to compile all relevant studies. Two reviewers screened the studies for inclusion in this review. Cases of discrepancy were resolved by a third reviewer. Meta-analyses were conducted using both metadta and midas STATA software packages to retrieve summary receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, and specificities. Three reviewers scored the studies with QUADAS-2 for risk of bias assessment.
resultsFrom a total of 713 unique studies retrieved, six studies were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Of these, five studies were in pediatric EDs. Two studies were conference abstracts and not published manuscripts. Data were available for 625 possible ACS cases (97% of cases in patients aged ≤ 21 years) and 95 confirmed ACS diagnoses (pretest probability of 15.2%). The summary sensitivity was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.68-0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.69-0.97) with an area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97).
interpretationLUS has excellent sensitivity and very good specificity for ACS diagnosis and may serve as an initial point-of-care test to facilitate rapid treatment of ACS and spare pediatric patients from ionizing radiation; however, further research is warranted to improve the generalizability to the adult sickle cell disease population.
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.