ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2025
Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Heart Failure; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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.
- Pre-hospital and emergency department point-of-care ultrasound in cardiovascular emergencies: a scoping review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Concerns About Heterogeneity Assessment in Statistics of Meta-analyses; a Letter to the Editor.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Lung Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Acute Heart Failure: Impact of Heart Failure History and Pleural Effusion.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the evident impact of ultrasonography on diagnosis in acute care settings, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding its accuracy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for the identification of acute heart failure in patients with suggestive manifestations. Methods: Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from their inception to November 2024 to identify original studies investigating accuracy of LUS for diagnosis of heart failure. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The statistical analysis for pooling the results of diagnostic performance parameters was conducted using Stata and Meta-DiSc softwares. Results: Thirty-eight included studies in this meta-analysis were published between 2006 and 2024, encompassing a total of 6,783 patients. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies with respect to sensitivity (I Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that LUS is a highly practical imaging for diagnosing acute heart failure, with excellent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. It is particularly valuable for excluding the heart failure when the result is negative. However, the influence of outlier and influential studies warrants caution, and future studies should aim to further validate these findings in diverse clinical contexts.
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.