ArticleCureus2024
Association of Lung Ultrasound Scores With Different Modes of Respiratory Support and Clinical Outcomes: An Observational Study in a Tertiary Care Neonatal Unit.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The predictive value of newborn and infant lung ultrasound score for mechanical ventilation needs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Feasibility of lung ultrasound-guided positive end-expiratory pressure adjustment in newborns.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Lung ultrasound predicts surfactant need in neonates on different respiratory support: an international diagnostic accuracy study.Respiratory research · 2026Article
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
backgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) is an evolving point-of-care tool in the neonatal intensive care unit. LUS score has been evaluated in adults as well as in neonates to characterize and diagnose various respiratory conditions. Recently, the LUS score has been evaluated for predicting clinical respiratory outcomes in neonates.
objectiveTo assess the association between LUS score and various modes of respiratory support and clinical outcomes among neonates presenting with respiratory distress.
methodsIn this prospective, cross-sectional, observational study done in a tertiary care neonatal unit, the LUS score was calculated within three hours of receiving respiratory support. Subsequently, the LUS score was assigned with each escalation and de-escalation of respiratory support. Maximum LUS scores for each clinical outcome were also recorded. Inter-rater agreement was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient.
resultA total of 162 LUS scans were performed in 65 babies with a mean gestation of 32.4 ± 3.7 weeks and median (IQR) birth weight of 1480 (1130-2000) grams. The LUS scores (median (IQR)) of babies on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and mechanical ventilation (MV) were 4 (3-6.5), 9 (8-11), and 12 (11-13.5), respectively (p-value < 0.001). The difference in maximum median LUS scores between different clinical outcomes was statistically significant, with a p-value < 0.001. LUS score had an excellent inter-rater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.998; p-value < 0.001).
conclusionThere is an association between LUS score and different modes of respiratory support with scores increasing as the level of support increased. LUS score was also found to be related with clinical outcomes like death, extubation failure, and recovery, which could help in predicting the prognosis.
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.