Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Relationship between simplified and extended lung ultrasound aeration scores and oxygenation metrics in very preterm infants in the first month of life: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the correlation between the simplified and extended lung ultrasound (LUS) aeration scores with oxygenation in very preterm neonates during the first month of life, focusing on how the relationship varies over time and with gestational age (GA). This prospective observational study included neonates born before 32 weeks' GA. LUS was performed on postnatal days 2, 7, 14, and 28. The simplified score assessed six anterolateral fields; the extended score added four posterior fields. Each field was graded on a 4-point scale. We used Spearman's coefficients to assess LUS-OSI correlations and Steiger's Z-test to compare them. We also built multivariable models for OSI, including GA, LUS, and their interaction as predictors. We enrolled 61 infants with a median (Q1, Q3) gestational age of 29.1 (27.1, 31.1) weeks. The extended score correlated more strongly with OSI than the simplified score (ρ = 0.69 vs 0.58, p < 0.001). Including posterior lung fields added limited value in the first two postnatal days but significantly improved OSI correlation thereafter. Both scores significantly enhanced GA in explaining OSI on days 2 and 28. We also observed a negative interaction between GA and LUS in explaining OSI.
conclusionDuring the first two postnatal days, the simplified LUS aeration score effectively reflects respiratory support needs, providing information beyond GA. Afterwards, including posterior lung fields significantly improves the correlation between LUS and OSI, with the largest difference between simplified and extended scores observed at 2 weeks, especially in more mature infants. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Quantitative lung ultrasound (LUS) aeration score is a validated tool for grading the severity of neonatal lung disease, with multiple clinical applications. • A simplified LUS score (assessing 6 anterolateral areas) is sufficient during the first 24 hours of life; while an extended LUS score (adding 4 posterior areas) is recommended afterwards. WHAT IS NEW: • During the first 48 hours postnatally, the simplified LUS score reliably reflects the need for respiratory support, offering information beyond gestational age alone. • Including posterior lung fields in the assessment markedly enhances the correlation between LUS scores and oxygenation metrics, especially at 2 weeks of age and in infants of higher gestational age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40903665What 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.