ArticleBiomedicine hub
Assessing the Reliability of Lung Ultrasound in Neonatal Acute Care Setting: A Systematic Review Protocol.
Article in Biomedicine hub. 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
Introduction: Choosing appropriate diagnostic imaging modalities in neonates is often challenging. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has been increasingly adopted in the diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory diseases in this population. However, since LUS interpretation relies heavily on operator skills and recognition of artefact patterns, concerns persist regarding its reliability. While numerous studies have explored the clinical utility of LUS, the study of its reliability - particularly inter-rater and intra-rater - remains substantially underrepresented. This systematic review aims to assess the reliability of LUS within neonatal acute care settings and explore associated influencing factors in this context. Methods: We will include studies of LUS examinations performed on neonatal patients (aged <28 days) presenting with respiratory signs, symptoms, or conditions and treated in acute care settings. The systematic review will follow the COSMIN guidelines. The search strategy will include searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, theses and dissertation repositories, and other gray literature sources. Studies will be assessed by two independent reviewers against the inclusion criteria. We will consider studies published from the 1990s to the present, in any language and of any methodological quality. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist will be used. We will extract inter-rater and intra-rater reliability metrics and synthesize the findings narratively and, if appropriate, with meta-analyses. Assessment of certainty of evidence will follow the modified GRADE approach. Conclusion: The findings of this study will address the gap in LUS evaluation on its reliability in neonatal care to guide safe and reproducible clinical practices.
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.