ArticleAnales del sistema sanitario de Navarra2024
[Diagnostic comparison of bedside lung ultrasound and chest radiography in the intensive care unit].
Article in Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-of-care ultrasound diagnostic accuracy for fecal impaction in the emergency department: a prospective study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Stroke-point-of-care ultrasound: a new holistic approach to bedside evaluation in stroke patients using ultrasound.European stroke journal · 2026Review
- Lung Elastance and Microvascularization as Quantitative Non-Invasive Biomarkers for the Aetiological Diagnosis of Lung Consolidations in Children (ELASMIC Study).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Roadmap to success: Blueprint for enterprise-wide deployment of a point-of-care ultrasound platform, inclusive of governance, policy, education, credentialing, and quality assurance (Part 2).Journal of clinical imaging science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBedside lung ultrasound (POCUS) offers advantages over chest X-ray, including better cost-effectiveness for diagnosing certain pulmonary pathologies. This study compares the diagnostic concordance between portable chest X-rays and bedside lung ultrasounds in the intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsAdult ICU patients were included. POCUS was performed using the abbreviated BLUE protocol. Diagnostic results from POCUS and chest radiographies were compared using the intensivist clinical diagnosis - based on clinical examinations and lung ultrasounds - as the reference. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ultrasounds were calculated.
resultsA total of 100 patients were included, 71 with pulmonary pathologies. The average time to perform the ultrasound was 308 seconds. Ultrasound identified pathology in 20 patients with a normal chest radiographs. Diagnostic discrepancies occurred in 30 patients, highlighting ultrasound´s superior sensitivity in detecting atelectasis, pleural effusions, and pulmonary edema. Ultrasound demonstrated sensitivity (S) of 85%, specificity (E) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 55%.
conclusionLung point-of-care ultrasound at ICU admission detects more pathologies and does not miss significant abnormalities seen on chest X-rays. It also shows good diagnostic accuracy. These findings suggest that pulmonary POCUS, using an abbreviated protocol, could be a viable alternative to chest radiography for initial evaluation and follow-up of pulmonary pathologies in critically ill patients, potentially improving care quality and management.
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.