Observational studyRespiratory care2023
Concise Versus Extended Lung Ultrasound Score to Monitor Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.
Observational study in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ESICM-ESPNIC international expert consensus on quantitative lung ultrasound in intensive care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to monitor critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the optimal number of examined lung zones is disputed.
methodsThis was a prospective observational study. The objective was to investigate whether concise (6 zones) and extended (12 zones) LUS scoring protocols are clinically equivalent in critically ill ICU subjects with COVID-19. The primary outcome of this study was (statistical) agreement between concise and extended LUS score index evaluated in both supine and prone position. Agreement was determined using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots to detect systematic differences between protocols. Secondary outcomes were difference between LUS score index in supine and prone position using similar methods.
resultsWe included 130 LUS examinations in 40 subjects (mean age 69.0 ± 8.5y, 75% male). Agreement between concise and extended LUS score index had no clinically relevant constant or proportional bias and limits of agreement were below the smallest detectable change. Across position changes, supine LUS score index was 8% higher than prone LUS score index and had limits above the smallest detectable change, indicating true LUS score index differences between protocols may occur due to the position change itself. Lastly, inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were very good.
conclusionsConcise LUS was equally informative as extended LUS for monitoring critically ill subjects with COVID-19 in supine or prone position. Clinicians can monitor patients undergoing position changes but must be wary that LUS score index alterations may result from the position change itself rather than disease progression or clinical improvement.
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.