Observational studyRespiratory research2024
Inspiratory-expiratory variation of pleural line thickness in neonates with and without acute respiratory failure.
Observational study in Respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biologic Therapy Is Associated with Reduced Pleural-Line Thickness in Severe Asthma: A Prospective Transthoracic Ultrasound Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Pleura-ABCDE - a structured expert-based protocol for neonatal lung ultrasound documentation and interpretation.The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
- ESICM-ESPNIC international expert consensus on quantitative lung ultrasound in intensive care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Lung Ultrasound in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Narrative Review of the Last 10 Years.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The lung ultrasound in children with SARS-COV-2 infection: a national multicenter prospective study.European journal of pediatrics · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are relatively few data about the ultrasound evaluation of pleural line in patients with respiratory failure. We measured the pleural line thickness during different phases of the respiratory cycle in neonates with and without acute respiratory failure as we hypothesized that this can significantly change.
methodsProspective, observational, cohort study performed in an academic tertiary neonatal intensive care unit recruiting neonates with transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN), respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) or neonatal acute respiratory distress syndrome (NARDS). Neonates with no lung disease (NLD) were also recruited as controls. Pleural line thickness was measured with high-frequency ultrasound at end-inspiration and end-expiration by two different raters.
resultsPleural line thickness was slightly but significantly higher at end-expiration (0.53 [0.43-0.63] mm) than at end-inspiration (0.5 [0.4-0.6] mm; p = 0.001) for the whole population. End-inspiratory (NLD: 0.45 [0.38-0.53], TTN: 0.49 [0.43-0.59], RDS: 0.53 [0.41-0.62], NARDS: 0.6 [0.5-0.7] mm) and -expiratory (NLD: 0.47 [0.42-0.56], TTN: 0.48 [0.43-0.61], RDS: 0.53 [0.46-0.65], NARDS: 0.61 [0.54-0.72] mm) thickness were significantly different (overall p = 0.021 for both), between the groups although the absolute differences were small. The inter-rater agreement was optimal (ICC: 0.95 (0.94-0.96)). Coefficient of variation was 2.8% and 2.5% for end-inspiratory and end-expiratory measurements, respectively. These findings provide normative data of pleural line thickness for the most common forms of neonatal acute respiratory failure and are useful to design future studies to investigate possible clinical applications.
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.