ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Terminology of pleural artifacts in ultrasound: a Tower of Babel.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLung ultrasound (LUS) has evolved into a widely used tool for the assessment of pleural artifacts (PA), yet the field remains trapped in a terminology Tower of Babel. A proliferation of terms has fragmented the literature, obstructed communication, and hindered progress toward standardization. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween January and February 2025, a structured but unsystematic literature review was conducted via Google Scholar to identify terminology used for PA. Twelve distinct terms were identified: A-lines, B-lines, comet-tail artifact, vertical artifact, horizontal artifact, reverberation artifact, mirror-image artifact, ring-down artifact, interstitial syndrome, wet lung, dry lung, and aurora sign. Relevant publications were selected based on predefined keyword combinations and expert review. An analysis of terminology usage was performed for 2000-2025.
resultsThe analysis revealed an increase in PA mentions from 751 (2000-2004) to 16,269 (2020-2025), representing more than a twenty-fold increase (+2,066%). Eleven of the twelve PAs showed significant annual growth; only the aurora sign did not demonstrate a consistent increase in usage over time.
conclusionThe simultaneous increase in nearly all terms for the same physical phenomena reflects a persistent lack of consensus in the literature. While other imaging fields, such as computed tomography, have adopted standardized glossaries like that of the Fleischner Society, LUS remains without a unified terminology. A shared, technology-independent vocabulary is needed to ensure clarity, comparability, and future progress in LUS. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A shared, technology-independent vocabulary is needed to ensure clarity, comparability, and future progress in lung ultrasound (LUS). KEY POINTS: Standardized studies and methodological progress require a unified nomenclature. The ultrasound community currently lacks consistent terminology for pleural artifacts (PA). A consensus, unified terminology for PA is urgently needed.
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.