ArticleScientific reports2025
Lung ultrasound for diagnosing etiology of respiratory illnesses in hospitalized children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The "two-hit" storm: a hyper-inflammatory endotype in pediatric long COVID and its role in the severity of secondary bacterial pneumonia-a mechanistic review and clinical implications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging radiation-free diagnostic tool with significant promise for identifying the causes of respiratory symptoms in hospitalized children. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 65 pediatric patients to evaluate the accuracy of LUS in determining the etiology of acute respiratory illness compared to an expert panel's final clinical diagnosis, and secondarily to chest X-ray (CXR). LUS examinations were performed within 24 h of admission by an investigator blinded to CXR results, and the final diagnoses were established by a committee blinded to LUS findings. LUS demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, correctly identifying the respiratory illness etiology in 92.3% of cases, with near-perfect agreement (κ = 0.86) with the final diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity were high across etiologies, including bacterial pneumonia, viral infections, and asthma exacerbations. LUS also outperformed CXR in determining the cause of illness. Integrating LUS findings with clinical and laboratory data allowed effective differentiation between bacterial and viral infections, highlighting LUS as a safer and more accurate alternative to CXR. Our findings support the integration of LUS into pediatric respiratory care and warrant further research to validate its utility on a larger scale.
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.