Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40590977›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025

Are lung ultrasound and chest radiograph equally reliable for neonatal imaging? A scoping review.

Fiorentino Grasso, Fiorella Migliaro, Claudio Veropalumbo, Serena Salomè, Iuri Corsini, Carlo Dani, Daniele De Luca, Francesco Raimondi, Letizia Capasso

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. [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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fiorentino GrassoDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy. fiorentino.grasso89@gmail.com.
Fiorella MigliaroDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Claudio VeropalumboDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Serena SalomèDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Iuri CorsiniDivision of Neonatology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Carlo DaniDivision of Neonatology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Daniele De LucaDivision of Pediatrics and Neonatal Critical Care, "Antoine Béclère" Hospital, Paris Saclay University Hospitals, APHP, Paris, France.
Francesco RaimondiDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Letizia CapassoDivision of Neonatology, Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bronchopulmonary DysplasiaLungRadiography, ThoracicRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornHumansInfant, NewbornPulmonary SurfactantsReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonographyPulmonary SurfactantsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaChest radiographLung UltrasoundNeonatal respiratory distress syndromeSurfactant administration

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.