ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Bedside lung ultrasound versus chest CT in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Study aim: Evluate bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) diagnostic accuracy versus chest computed tomography (CT) in adult ICU patients with respiratory distress. Design and methods: Single-center, cross-sectional study of 200 paired LUS-CT examinations. LUS was performed within 12 h, scanning six zones per hemithorax and classifying findings into A-lines, C1 (pneumonia), C2 (atelectasis), B1, B2 (interstitial patterns), pleural effusion, and emphysema. Diagnostic performance metrics included sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and ROC analysis. Key results: CT showed consolidations (60.5%), pleural effusions (42.5%), interstitial syndrome (28.5%), ground-glass opacities (26%), and emphysema (23.5%). LUS detected C1 in 66.5% (posterior-inferior predominance), B2 in 40.5%, B1 in 40%, pleural effusions in 38.5%, C2 in 13.5%, and emphysema in 16.5%. Overall concordance with CT was 81%. LUS had very high specificity for pleural effusion (Sp = 96.5%, PLR = 24.5, accuracy = 91.9%) and atelectasis (Sp = 93.7%, NPV = 97.6%, PLR = 12.6, accuracy = 92.3%), very high sensitivity for alveolar-interstitial syndrome (Se = 96.2%, NPV = 98.3%, NLR = 0.05), and good sensitivity for consolidations (Se = 89.3%). Conclusion: LUS is a reliable bedside tool that can reduce CT use, radiation exposure, and enable dynamic monitoring; structured training is essential.
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.