Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740771›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2023

Comparison among three lung ultrasound scores used to predict the need for surfactant replacement therapy: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a cohort of preterm infants.

Iuri Corsini, Maria Beatrice Lenzi, Martina Ciarcià, Federico Matina, Enrico Petoello, Alice Iride Flore, Silvia Nogara, Antonella Gangemi, Monica Fusco, Letizia Capasso and 4 more

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Characteristics of scores used for quantitative lung ultrasound in neonates: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Iuri CorsiniNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Division of Neonatology, Careggi University Hospital of Florence, Florence, Italy. corsiniiuri@gmail.com.
Maria Beatrice LenziNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Martina CiarciàNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Division of Neonatology, Careggi University Hospital of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Federico MatinaNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Cervello Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Enrico PetoelloNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Alice Iride FloreNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Silvia NogaraNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Antonella GangemiNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Cervello Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Monica FuscoNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Division of Neonatology, Careggi University Hospital of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Letizia CapassoDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Università Federico II di Napoli, Naples, Italy.
Francesco RaimondiDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Università Federico II di Napoli, Naples, Italy.
Javier Rodriguez-FanjulNeonatology Department, Institut d'Investigació Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain.
Carlo DaniNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Division of Neonatology, Careggi University Hospital of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Benjamim FicialNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITOspedale Vincenzo Cervello · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung ultrasound (LU) has emerged as the imaging technique of choice for the assessment of neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) at the bedside. Scoring systems were developed to quantify RDS severity and to predict the need for surfactant administration. There is no data on the comparison of the three main LU scores (LUS) proposed by Brat, Raimondi and Rodriguez-Fanjul. Moreover, there is not enough evidence to recommend which score and which cut-off has the best ability to predict surfactant need. The three LUS were compared in terms of ability to predict the need for surfactant and reproducibility in a cohort of very preterm infants. This was an observational, retrospective, multicenter study. Neonates below 32 weeks of gestational age with RDS, on non-invasive ventilation with a LU performed prior to surfactant administration (1-3 h of life) were included. Brat, Raimondi, and Rodriguez-Fanjul's scores were calculated for each patient. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the ability to predict surfactant administration. K-Cohen test, Bland-Altman, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess the intra and interobserver variability. Fifty-four preterm infants were enrolled. Brat, Raimondi, and Rodriguez-Fanjul scores showed a strong ability to predict the need for surfactant: the AUCs were 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.96), 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96), and 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.92), respectively. No significant differences have been found between the AUCs using the DeLong test. Brat and Raimondi's scores had an optimal cut-off value > 8, while the Rodriguez-Fanjul's score > 10. The k-Cohen values of intraobserver agreement for Brat, Raimondi, and Rodriguez-Fanjul's scores were 0.896 (0.698-1.000), 1.000 (1.000-1.000), and 0.922 (0.767-1.000), respectively. The k-Cohen values of interobserver agreement were 0.896 (0.698-1.000), 0.911 (0.741-1.000), and 0.833 (0.612-1.000), respectively.Conclusions: The three LUS had an excellent ability to predict the need for surfactant and an optimal intra and interobserver agreement. The differences found between the three scores are minimal with negligible clinical implications. Since the optimal cut-off value differed, the same score should be used consistently within the same center. What is Known: • Lung ultrasound is a useful bedside imaging tool that should be used in the assessment of neonates with RDS • Scoring systems or lung ultrasound scores allow to quantify the severity of the pulmonary disease and to predict the need for surfactant replacement therapy What is New: • The three lung ultrasound scores by Brat, Raimondi and Rodriguez-Fanjul have an excellent ability to predict the need for surfactant replacement therapy, although with different cut-off values • All three lung ultrasound scores had an excellent intra and interobserver reproducibility.

Indexed as

Pulmonary SurfactantsRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureLungReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSurface-Active AgentsUltrasonographyPulmonary SurfactantsSurface-Active AgentsLung ultrasound scoreNeonatal intensive carePreterm infantsSurfactant replacement therapy

Identifiers

PMID37740771
OpenAlexW4386981237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.