ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
The diagnostic value and efficacy evaluation of lung ultrasound score in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expanded versus classical assessments for identifying mandate for lung ultrasound-guided surfactant therapy in preterm neonates (EXCLAIM-LUS): a retrospective comparative study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Research progress on biomarkers associated with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Lung ultrasound score ≥ 6 predicts surfactant administration decisions in meconium aspiration syndrome: a multicenter prospective study.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
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
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and determine the optimal cut-off values of lung ultrasound score for diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and its accuracy in assessing the efficacy of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Method: This prospective study included 100 neonates with suspected neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Each patient underwent both the 14-zone and 12-zone lung ultrasound methods, as well as a chest x-ray, performed after birth and before initiating drug treatment. Surfactant replacement therapy was administered to patients who were diagnosed with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and met the criteria for medication. Lung ultrasound was conducted and recorded at the 24th hour, the 48th hour, the 72nd hour, and the 7th day after drug administration. ROC curve analysis, Kappa statistics, and ANOVA were utilized to identify the optimal cut-off values for the lung ultrasound scores in diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Results: 89 neonates were diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome, of whom 64 received surfactant replacement therapy. The mean scores of 12-zone lung ultrasound score, 14-zone lung ultrasound score, and chest x-ray score are 18.22 ± 7.15, 38.92 ± 9.69, and 2.15 ± 0.97, respectively. The diagnostic AUC for the 12-zone lung ultrasound score is 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73-0.95), with an optimal cut-off value of 13.5 for diseased vs. not diseased, while the AUC for the 14-zone lung ultrasound score is 0.88 (95% CI: 0.76-0.99), with an optimal cut-off value of 34 for diseased vs. not diseased. There is significant concordance between the neonatal lung ultrasonography scores and the chest x-ray score for diagnosis respiratory distress syndrome ( Conclusion: The 14-zone lung ultrasound score demonstrates higher diagnostic efficacy in diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and can accurately evaluate the early efficacy of surfactant replacement therapy in neonates.
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.