Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Extended vs. concise lung ultrasound scores to predict the need for respiratory support in bronchiolitis: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 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.
- Application of a modified lung ultrasound score in assessing the severity of neonatal pneumonia: a multicenter prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a valuable tool for assessing bronchiolitis severity, yet the optimal scoring system remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of two LUS scoring methods-concise vs. extended-for determining the need for respiratory support in infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. We conducted a prospective observational study including infants < 12 months hospitalized for bronchiolitis. All patients underwent LUS within 12 h of admission, performed by trained pediatricians blinded to clinical outcomes. The concise score assessed three lung regions per hemithorax, whereas the extended score included six regions per hemithorax. The primary outcome was the need for respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation). Interobserver agreement was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A total of 160 infants were included, with 87 (54.4%) requiring respiratory support. The extended LUS score demonstrated superior predictive performance (AUC = 0.879, 95% CI 0.824-0.934) compared to the concise score (AUC = 0.761, 95% CI 0.686-0.837, p < 0.001). The optimal cutoffs were 14 for the extended score (89.7% sensitivity, 78.1% specificity) and 7 for the concise score (79.3% sensitivity, 67.1% specificity). Interobserver reliability was good for both scores (ICC = 0.86 and 0.79).
conclusionThe extended LUS score exhibited higher predictive accuracy but at the expense of increased complexity. While both scores demonstrated clinical utility, further studies should explore the balance between feasibility and precision in bronchiolitis management. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Lung ultrasound (LUS) is increasingly used to assess the severity of bronchiolitis in infants. • Several LUS scoring systems exist, but there is no consensus on which score best predicts the need for respiratory support. WHAT IS NEW: • This study prospectively compares a concise and an extended LUS score to predict the need for advanced respiratory support in hospitalized infants. • The extended score had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy and clinically oriented cut-offs to guide triage decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40410579What 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.