ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Lung Ultrasound in Coronary Care Unit, an Important Diagnostic Tool for Concomitant Pneumonia.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Lung ultrasound in cardiac rehabilitation: expert consensus on protocols, clinical use, and integration into patient management from the working group on cardiac rehabilitation and cardiovascular prevention of the Italian society of cardiology.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Ten Questions on Using Lung Ultrasonography to Diagnose and Manage Pneumonia in Hospital-at-Home Model: Part II-Confounders and Mimickers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Lung ultrasound in pneumonia: a guide for effective implementation.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Ten Questions on Using Lung Ultrasonography to Diagnose and Manage Pneumonia in the Hospital-at-Home Model: Part I-Techniques and Patterns.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Giant aortic aneurism diagnosed by lung ultrasound.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Lung ultrasound training: how short is too short? observational study on the effects of a focused theoretical training for novice learners.BMC medical education · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the setting of a coronary care unit (CCU), the early detection of pneumonia is of paramount important to prevent severe complications. This study was designed aiming to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the detection of pneumonia and compared with chest X-ray (CXR). Method: We enrolled 110 consecutive patients admitted to the CCU of Federico II University Hospital. Each patient underwent CXR and bedside LUS on admission. The final diagnosis (pneumonia vs. no pneumonia) was established by another clinician reviewing clinical and laboratory data independent of LUS results and possibly prescribing chest contrast-enhanced CT (n = 34). Results: The mean age was 70 ± 11 years old, and 68% were males. Pneumonia was clinically diagnosed in 26 (23%) patients. LUS was positive for pneumonia in 24 patients (sensitivity 92%, specificity 81%). Chest radiography was positive for pneumonia in nine patients (sensitivity 43%, specificity 95%). Using CT scan as a reference, LUS exhibited 92% sensitivity and a specificity of 96%. In ROC curve analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of CXR and LUS for the diagnosis of pneumonia was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77−0.94), which was higher than CXR 0.68 (95% CI 0.55−0.84), p < 0.05. Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, the accuracy of LUS in the detection of pneumonia was significantly higher than chest X-ray with comparable sensibility to CT scan.
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.