Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38299193›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR2024

Point-of-care lung ultrasound in detecting pneumonia: A systematic review.

Iqra Abid, Nadia Qureshi, Nicola Lategan, Simon Williams, Sidra Shahid

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. My approach to respiratory sepsis: pulmonary.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Iqra AbidRespiratory Therapy Services Sidra Medical and Research Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0594-9431
Nadia QureshiAlberta Health Services Respiratory Health Section, Medicine Strategic Clinical Network.
Nicola LateganRespiratory Therapy Services Sidra Medical and Research Center.
Simon WilliamsUniversity of South Wales.
Sidra ShahidBahria University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5799-9896
Sidra Medical and Research Center · QAAlberta Health Services · CABahria University · PKUniversity of South Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Limited evidence exists to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) across all age groups. This review aimed to investigate the benefits of point-of-care LUS for the early diagnosis of pneumonia compared to traditional chest X-rays (CXR) in a subgroup analysis including pediatric, adult, and geriatric populations. Material and Methods: This systematic review examined systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original research from 2017 to 2021, comparing point-of-care LUS and CXR in diagnosing pneumonia among adults, pediatrics and geriatrics. Studies lacking direct comparison or exploring diseases other than pneumonia, case reports, and those examining pneumonia secondary to COVID-19 variants were excluded. The search utilized PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases with specific search strings. The study selection, conducted by two independent investigators, demonstrated an agreement by the Kappa index, ensuring reliable article selection. The QUADAS-2 tool assessed the selected studies for quality, highlighting risk of bias and applicability concerns across key domains. Statistical analysis using Stata Version 16 determined pooled sensitivity and specificity via a bivariate model, emphasizing LUS and CXR diagnostic capabilities. Additionally, RevMan 5.4.1 facilitated the calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), offering insights into diagnostic accuracy. Results: The search, conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases by two independent investigators, initially identified 1045 articles. Following screening processes, 12 studies comprised a sample size of 2897. LUS demonstrated a likelihood ratio of 5.09, a specificity of 81.91%, and a sensitivity of 92.13% in detecting pneumonia in pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients, with a p-value of 0.0002 and a 95% confidence interval, indicating diagnostic accuracy ranging from 84.07% to 96.29% when compared directly to CXR. Conclusion: Our review supports that LUS can play a valuable role in detecting pneumonia early with high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy across diverse patient demographics, including pediatric, adult, and geriatric populations. Since it overcomes most of the limitations of CXR and other diagnostic modalities, it can be utilized as a diagnostic tool for pneumonia for all age groups as it is a safe, readily available, and cost-effective modality that can be utilized in an emergency department, intensive care units, wards, and clinics by trained respiratory care professionals.

Indexed as

accuracyemergencyICUknowledge“lung ultrasound versus chest x-raypneumoniasenstivityspecificitytrainingwards

Identifiers

PMID38299193
PMCPMC10830142
OpenAlexW4391303640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.