Trial reportPloS one2024
Comparison of different types of ultrasound probes for lung ultrasound in neonates-A prospective randomized comparison study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing transducer choice for the detection of alveolar-interstitial syndrome in dogs and cats: an evidence-based review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Ten Questions on Using Lung Ultrasonography to Diagnose and Manage Pneumonia in the Hospital-at-Home Model: Part I-Techniques and Patterns.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effect of different types of probes for lung ultrasound in neonates.
designProspective, blinded, randomized, comparative study between 2020 and 2022.
settingSingle-center study at a third level neonatal unit. PATIENTS: Hemodynamically stable infants with either nasal continuous positive airway pressure, high flow nasal cannula or without respiratory support.
interventionLung ultrasound using either an echo or microconvex probe. As control, the linear probe was used.
main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was neonatologist performed lung ultrasound (NPLUS) score. Secondary outcome measures were number of B-Lines, thickness of the pleural line and subjective image quality. Furthermore, correlation between NPLUS results and clinical data was assessed.
resultsA total of 1584 video loops from 66 patients, with a mean corrected gestational age of 33.8 weeks (SD 4.23) and weight of 1950g (SD 910), respectively, were analyzed. NPLUS score was estimated lower with the echo- and microconvex probe compared to the linear probe, with a coefficient of -2.95 (p < 0.001) and -1.09 (p = 0.19), respectively. Correlation between the pulse oximetric saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio and NPLUS score was moderately strong and best using the microconvex probe (Spearman's rho = -0.63, p<0.001).
conclusionOur results not only confirm the current recommendations, but also demonstrate the extent of the varying results when different probes are used. The differences we discovered call for caution in interpreting scores, especially in the context of guiding therapies and communicating prognoses. Finally, the correlation between NPLUS score and clinical parameters contributes to validating the use of this diagnostic tool.
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.