ReviewPediatric radiology2024
Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of physician lung ultrasound versus chest radiography for pneumonia diagnosis in a peri-urban South African cohort.
Review in Pediatric radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Eminence-Based Versus Evidence-Based Imaging of Lung Infection (Pneumonia) in Children - Diagnostic Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Review
- Impact of Lung Ultrasound along with C-Reactive Protein Point-of-Care Testing on Clinical Decision-Making and Perceived Usefulness in Routine Healthcare for Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: Protocol for Analytical Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasound (US), which is radiation-free and cheaper than chest radiography (CXR), may be a useful modality for the diagnosis of pediatric pneumonia, but there are limited data from low- and middle-income countries.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of non-radiologist, physician-performed lung US compared to CXR for pneumonia in children in a resource-constrained, African setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsChildren under 5 years of age enrolled in a South African birth cohort study, the Drakenstein Child Health Study, who presented with clinically defined pneumonia and had a CXR performed also had a lung US performed by a study doctor. Each modality was reported by two readers, using standardized methodology. Agreement between modalities, accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of lung US and inter-rater agreement were assessed. Either consolidation or any abnormality (consolidation or interstitial picture) was considered as endpoints. In the 98 included cases (median age: 7.2 months; 53% male; 69% hospitalized), prevalence was 37% vs. 39% for consolidation and 52% vs. 76% for any abnormality on lung US and CXR, respectively. Agreement between modalities was poor for consolidation (observed agreement=61%, Kappa=0.18, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: - 0.02 to 0.37) and for any abnormality (observed agreement=56%, Kappa=0.10, 95% CI: - 0.07 to 0.28). Using CXR as the reference standard, sensitivity of lung US was low for consolidation (47%, 95% CI: 31-64%) or any abnormality (5%, 95% CI: 43-67%), while specificity was moderate for consolidation (70%, 95% CI: 57-81%), but lower for any abnormality (58%, 95% CI: 37-78%). Overall inter-observer agreement of CXR was poor (Kappa=0.25, 95% CI: 0.11-0.37) and was significantly lower than the substantial agreement of lung US (Kappa=0.61, 95% CI: 0.50-0.75). Lung US demonstrated better agreement than CXR for all categories of findings, showing a significant difference for consolidation (Kappa=0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.86 vs. 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13-0.51).
conclusionLung US identified consolidation with similar frequency to CXR, but there was poor agreement between modalities. The significantly higher inter-observer agreement of LUS compared to CXR supports the utilization of lung US by clinicians in a low-resource setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37311897What 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.