ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Efficacy of Lung Ultrasound vs Chest X-Ray in Detecting Lung Consolidation and Edema in Premature Infants in the NICU.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The incidence of lung diseases in premature newborns is significantly higher than in full-term newborns due to their underdeveloped lungs. Ultrasound and X-ray are commonly-used bedside examinations in neonatology. This study primarily compares the efficacy of chest X-ray (CXR) and lung ultrasound (LUS) images in evaluating lung consolidation and edema in premature newborns at Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted on LUS and CXR examination results, along with clinical records of premature newborns admitted to our hospital's NICU from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. CXR and LUS scans were performed on the same newborn within a day. We evaluated the consolidations and edema by interpreting the CXR and LUS images, then compared the findings. RESULTS Out of 75 cases, 34 showed lung consolidations on LUS (45%), while only 14 exhibited consolidations on CXR (19%). The detection rate of consolidations by LUS was significantly higher compared to CXR (34/75 vs 14/75, P<0.001). Differences were observed between the 2 bedside examinations in identifying consolidations, with some cases seen only on LUS. CXR struggled to accurately assess the severity of lung edema visible on LUS, showing significant disparity in detecting interstitial edema (53/75 vs 21/75, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS LUS outperforms chest CXR for bedside assessment of lung consolidation and edema in premature newborns.
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.