ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Are lung ultrasound and chest radiograph equally reliable for neonatal imaging? A scoping review.
Article 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lung Ultrasound-Guided Non-Fiberobronchoscopic Bronchoalveolar Lavage for Neonatal Atelectatic Pulmonary Disease Treatment: Clinical Practice Guidelines Based on International Expert Consensus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Guideline
- Lung ultrasound evolution after interventional closure of the ductus in preterm babies.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- [Interpretation of the "European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome: 2025"].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2026Article
- Sonographic evaluation of lungs and diaphragm as a predictor for extubation failure in early preterm neonates: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.European journal of pediatrics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest radiograph (CR) has traditionally been the standard in imaging neonatal respiratory diseases. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has recently emerged as a radiation-free alternative. This scoping review compares the reliability of these two techniques for diagnosing respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), evaluating the need of surfactant replacement, and predicting the development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published between 1974 and December 2024. The following search terms were used: "neonate," "lung ultrasound," "chest radiography," "reliability," "Respiratory Distress Syndrome," "Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia," and "surfactant administration." The search was limited to full articles. Only studies evaluating the inter- and intra-observer agreement were included. Out of 322 evaluated papers, 14 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. LUS had four papers (308 neonates) for RDS diagnosis with Cohen's k or intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥ 0.9, four studies (480 neonates) for the need of surfactant replacement with Cohen's k ≥ 0.83, and three papers for BPD prediction (280 infants) showing a Cohen's k ≥ 0.82. We found no publication on CR reliability for RDS diagnosis, one paper on 56 neonates on its prediction of surfactant need with a Cohen's k = 0.86, and two studies (146 neonates) on BPD prediction with Cohen's k ranging from 0.19 to 0.41.
conclusionWe show that, unlike CR, LUS has good quality evidence in favor of its reliability for both diagnosis and prognosis of significant neonatal respiratory diseases and guiding surfactant delivery. WHAT IS KNOWN: • CR has traditionally been the standard imaging method for neonatal respiratory diseases. • LUS has emerged as a radiation-free and highly accurate alternative. WHAT IS NEW: • This review indicates that LUS offers robust evidence of its high reliability for the diagnosis and prognosis of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and for guiding surfactant delivery. In stark contrast, there is a concerning absence of solid evidence regarding CR's reliability for the aforementioned conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40590977What 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.