ArticleThe ultrasound journal2023
Lung ultrasound: are we diagnosing too much?
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypertensive Urgency and Pulmonary Infiltrates: A Report of Three Cases.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Ten Questions on Using Lung Ultrasonography to Diagnose and Manage Pneumonia in Hospital-at-Home Model: Part III-Synchronicity and Foresight.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Can Lung Ultrasound Act as a Diagnosis and Monitoring Tool in Children with Community Acquired Pneumonia? Correlation with Risk Factors, Clinical Indicators and Biologic Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Convolutional automatic identification of B-lines and interstitial syndrome in lung ultrasound images using pre-trained neural networks with feature fusion.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Thoracic ultrasound use in hospitalized and ambulatory adult patients: a quantitative picture.The ultrasound journal · 2024Article
- Chest X-rays and Lung Ultrasound Are Not Interchangeable in Intensive Care Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical use of lung ultrasound (LUS) has made more efficient many diagnostic processes at bedside. The great power of LUS is a superior diagnostic sensitivity in many applications, when compared to chest radiography (CXR). The implementation of LUS in emergency is contributing to reveal a growing number of radio-occult pulmonary conditions. In some diseases, the superior sensitivity of LUS is a great advantage, like for pneumothorax and pulmonary edema. Diagnosing at bedside pneumothoraxes, pulmonary congestions, and COVID-19 pneumonia that are visible by LUS but undetected by CXR may be decisive for appropriate management, and even for saving lives. However, in other conditions, like bacterial pneumonia and small peripheral infarctions due to subsegmental pulmonary embolism, the high sensitivity of LUS does not always lead to advantages. Indeed, we doubt that it is always necessary to treat by antibiotics patients suspected of lower respiratory tract infection, who show radio-occult pulmonary consolidations, and to treat by anticoagulation patients with small subsegmental pulmonary embolism. The possibility that we are overtreating radio-occult conditions should be investigated with dedicated clinical trials.
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.