ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Lung ultrasound score in dogs and cats: A reliability study.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonographic Assessment of the Lungs in Asiatic Elephants (Elephas maximus).Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026Article
- Optimizing transducer choice for the detection of alveolar-interstitial syndrome in dogs and cats: an evidence-based review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Primary pulmonary histiocytic sarcoma with nodal and esophageal metastasis in a dog-imaging and anatomopathological aspects.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Acute Effect of Furosemide on Left Atrium Size in Cats with Acute Left-Sided Congestive Heart Failure.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Sonographic Assessment of Hyperechoic Vertical Artifact Characteristics in Lung Ultrasound Using Microconvex, Phased Array, and Linear Transducers.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Laryngeal and pleural ultrasound and acoustic radiation force impulse elastography in dogs with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound in Small Animal Emergency and Critical Care Medicine: A Clinical Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Sonographic machine-assisted recognition and tracking of B-lines in dogs: the SMARTDOG study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Anaesthesia-induced atelectasis in a rat model (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Quantification of metallic artifact on CT associated with titanium pedicle screws.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Lung ultrasound score in dogs and cats: A reliability study.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) is a noninvasive tool for examining respiratory distress patients. The lung ultrasound score (LUSS) can be used to quantify and monitor lung aeration loss with good reliability. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesAssess the reliability of a new LUSS among raters with different levels of experience and determine how well the same raters agree on identifying patterns of LUS abnormalities. ANIMALS: Forty LUS examinations of dogs and cats and 320 videos were reviewed from a digital database.
methodsRetrospective reliability study with post hoc analysis. Protocolized LUS were randomly selected; intrarater and interrater reliability of the LUSS and pattern recognition agreement among 4 raters with different levels of experience in LUS were tested.
resultsThe intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) single measurement, absolute agreement, and 2-way mixed effects model was 0.967 for the high-experience rater (H-Exp), 0.963 and 0.952 for the medium-experience raters (M-Exp-1; M-Exp-2), and 0.950 for the low-experience rater (L-Exp). The interrater ICC average measurement, absolute agreement, and 2-way random effects model among the observers was 0.980. The Fleiss' kappa (k) values showed almost perfect agreement (k = 1) among raters in identifying pleural effusion and translobar tissue-like pattern, strong agreement for A-lines (k = 0.881) and B-lines (k = 0.806), moderate agreement (k = 0.693) for subpleural loss of aeration, and weak agreement (k = 0.474) for irregularities of the pleural line. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Our results indicate excellent intra- and interrater reliability for LUS scoring and pattern identification, providing a foundation for the use of the LUSS in emergency medicine and intensive care.
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.