ArticleClinical cardiology2026
Assessment of Point of Care Lung Ultrasound in the Ambulatory Heart Failure Setting.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2026. 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.
- Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound in Ambulatory Heart Failure-Moving From Feasibility to Outcomes.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Assessment of Point of Care Lung Ultrasound in the Ambulatory Heart Failure Setting.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimited studies have evaluated lung ultrasound (LUS) in ambulatory heart failure (HF). A six-zone LUS assesses B-lines, a marker of congestion. The Butterfly IQ+ probe features an automated B-line counter (ABLC), eliminating manual counting. We evaluated LUS quality by novice HF providers after training, compared expert manual counts to ABLC, and explored associations between LUS and clinical HF metrics.
methodsThree novice providers underwent 2 h of didactics and 30 proctored exams. Image quality was independently reviewed by two LUS experts. B-lines were counted manually by experts and ABLC. We assessed associations between LUS and four clinical metrics: provider-assessed volume status, > 30% NT-proBNP increase, > 5 lb weight gain, and PAD above goal (CardioMEMS).
resultsSeventy-five subjects were enrolled. Overall, LUS quality was excellent, with 88% good quality. Surprisingly, agreement between expert B-line counts was moderate (Gwet's AC1: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.71) while the accuracy of experts as compared to ABLC was modest (Expert 1 = 61.2%, Expert 2 = 40.3%). Experts correctly identified 93% of positive studies but only 19% of negative studies versus ABLC. Provider volume assessments substantially agreed with LUS (Gwet's AC1: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.91), but providers identified only half of positive LUS cases, suggesting utility in detecting mild volume overload. Only volume overload correlated with positive LUS. Only 25% of subjects had a CardioMEMS.
conclusionNovice providers can perform high-quality LUS after brief training. ABLC reduces B-line counting variability. LUS detects mild pulmonary congestion undetectable by clinical exam, potentially preventing worsening in HF patients.
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.