ArticleJournal of clinical ultrasound : JCU2023
Lung ultrasound versus chest computed tomography for pregnant inpatients with COVID-19.
Article in Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- External validity limitations of randomized trials cited in adult critical care clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of guidelines published from 2015 to 2020.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- ESICM-ESPNIC international expert consensus on quantitative lung ultrasound in intensive care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Lung ultrasound in pregnant COVID-19 patients: An added tool to expand patient care.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2023Article
- Lung ultrasound versus chest computed tomography for pregnant inpatients with COVID-19.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare lung ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) in the assessment of pregnant women with COVID-19.
methodsProspective study comprising 39 pregnant inpatients with COVID-19 who underwent pulmonary assessment with CT and US with a maximum span of 48 h between the exams. The thorax was divided into 12 regions and assessed in terms of the following: the presence of B-lines (>2), coalescent B-lines, consolidation on US; presence of interlobular thickening, ground glass, consolidation on CT. The two methods were scored by adding up the scores from each thoracic region.
resultsA significant correlation was found between the scores obtained by the two methods (rICC = 0.946; p < 0.001). They were moderately in agreement concerning the frequency of altered pulmonary regions (weighted kappa = 0.551). In US, a score over 15, coalescent B-lines, and consolidation were predictors of the need for oxygen, whereas the predictors in CT were a lung score over 16 and consolidation. The two methods, US (p < 0.001; AUC = 0.915) and CT (p < 0.001; AUC = 0.938), were fairly accurate in predicting the need for oxygen.
conclusionIn pregnant women, lung US and chest CT are of similar accuracy in assessing lungs affected by COVID-19 and can predict the need for oxygen.
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.