ArticleThe ultrasound journal2025
Comparison of two point-of-care lung ultrasound techniques and their associated outcomes for bronchiolitis in the pediatric emergency department.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Extended vs. concise lung ultrasound scores to predict the need for respiratory support in bronchiolitis: a prospective observational study.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Observational
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
backgroundAcute bronchiolitis (AB) is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants. Clinician diagnosis and management vary due to limited objective assessment tools. Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) offers a promising diagnostic and prognostic tool in the emergency department (ED), however, the time to perform LUS is of concern in the emergency setting.
methodsInfants ≤ 12 months diagnosed with AB in the emergency department were enrolled. Two LUS techniques were performed sequentially: a 12-segment "lawnmower" approach and a posterior paravertebral "waterfall" technique. LUS were scored (0-36 for lawnmower; 0-6 for waterfall). Respiratory support (RS) was categorized into three levels: no RS (room air), low RS (wall O2 or heated high flow nasal cannula < 1L/kg), and high RS (heated high flow nasal cannula ≥ 1L/kg or positive pressure). Clinical data, including RS at 12 and 24 h, maximum RS, disposition, and length of stay, were extracted via chart review and compared to mean LUS scores for each technique. Calculated areas under the curve (AUC) were compared using the Youden Index (J).
results82 infants were enrolled. The mean waterfall scanning time was 1.65 min (SD 0.55) compared to the lawnmower's 7.65 min (SD 1.45). The difference between mean LUS scores for the waterfall technique was statistically significant for all disposition comparisons and nearly all RS comparisons. While the lawnmower AUC was greater than the waterfall AUC for all RS and disposition comparisons, the Youden Index (J) was statistically significantly different for only two of the eight comparisons.
conclusionThe posterior-only LUS technique is faster than the lawnmower technique, provides comparable information for disposition, and has a stronger association with LOS, but is less associated with RS. The waterfall technique may be a suitable alternative to more time-intensive, thorough techniques.
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.