ArticleEmergency medicine international2023
Clinical Implications of the Lung Ultrasound Score in Patients after Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung ultrasound score (LUS) is a clinical index used to measure lung injury, but its clinical value in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remains relatively unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical value of LUS in patients after CPR. Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 34 patients older than 18 years with a nontraumatic cause of in-hospital cardiac arrest, who received standard resuscitation and achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). All patients underwent bedside lung ultrasound examination within half an hour once ROSC was achieved, and LUSs were calculated. The study included patient death as the endpoint event. Results: Compared with the group with lower LUSs, the patients with higher LUSs had a lower oxygenation index, longer duration of CPR, and lower 72 h survival rate. The initial LUS had good clinical value in predicting the secondary outcomes of CPR (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.353, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.018-1.797, and Conclusions: LUS was shown to be helpful and had a prognostic value in patients after CPR.
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.