ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2024
Comparison of lung ultrasound scoring systems for the prognosis of COVID-19 in the emergency department: An international prospective cohort study.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the lung ultrasound (LUS) scores applied to an international cohort of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19, and subsequently admitted with proven disease, could prognosticate clinical outcomes. Methods: This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of patients who received LUS and were followed for the composite primary outcome of intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. LUS scores were later applied including two 12-zone protocols ('de Alencar score' and 'CLUE score'), a 12-zone protocol with lung and pleural findings ('Ji score') and an 11-zone protocol ('Tung-Chen score'). The primary analysis comprised logistic regression modelling of the composite primary outcome, with the LUS scores analysed individually as predictor variables. Results: Between April 2020 to April 2022, 129 patients with COVID-19 had LUS performed according to the protocol and 24 (18.6%) met the composite primary endpoint. No association was seen between the LUS score and the composite primary end point for the de Alencar score [odds ratio (OR) = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.11; P = 0.29], the CLUE score (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96-1.10; P = 0.40), the Ji score (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.07; P = 0.40) or the Tung-Chen score (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.08). Discussion: Compared to these earlier studies performed at the start of the pandemic, the negative outcome of our study could reflect the changing scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic, including patient, disease, and system factors. The analysis suggests that the study may have been underpowered to detect a weaker association between a LUS score and the primary outcome. Conclusion: In an international cohort of adult patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 disease who had LUS performed and were subsequently admitted to hospital, LUS severity scores did not prognosticate the need for invasive ventilation, ICU admission or death.
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.