ArticleThe ultrasound journal2026
The predictive value of different lung ultrasound protocols for extravascular lung water in septic shock patients.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, the role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with septic shock is widely recognized. Various LUS protocols and scoring criteria have been proposed, yet a unified LUS protocol for assessing lung water in these patients remains lacking.
methodsForty‑six septic shock patients underwent LUS with three scanning schemes (4‑region, 8‑region, BLUE) alongside pulse indicated continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) monitoring. Spearman correlation analysis was used to compare the correlation between the three ultrasound scoring schemes, PiCCO and other clinical laboratory indicators. At the same time, the value of three LUS protocols for assessing pulmonary water in septic shock patients was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsSpearman's correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) and 4-region, 8-region, or the Bedside Lung Ultrasound Examination (BLUE) protocol. More importantly, the BLUE protocol showed a stronger correlation with EVLWI than the 4-region protocol and the 8-region protocol (r=0.634, 0.458, 0.546, p<0.001). The ROC curve analysis showed that ultrasound protocols could predict the early occurrence of pulmonary edema in septic shock patients (EVLWI>7 ml/kg), diagnosis of pulmonary edema (EVLWI>10 ml/kg), and evaluation of pulmonary fluid severity (EVLWI≥15 ml/kg).
conclusionsOur study found that septic shock patients were prone to pulmonary edema during fluid resuscitation, and ultrasound scoring could help us quantify pulmonary edema. Among the 4-region, 8-region and BLUE protocols, the BLUE protocol shows relatively better overall performance in predicting lung water elevation and evaluating edema severity.
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.