ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Lung Imaging in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: From Physics to Bedside Applications.
Review in Journal of clinical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) represents one of the most common and clinically challenging indications for invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, characterized by profound etiological heterogeneity that demands accurate diagnosis to guide treatment. While clinical history, physical examination, and laboratory data remain essential, they are often insufficient to reliably discriminate among conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and pneumonia-particularly in mechanically ventilated patients. Lung imaging has therefore emerged as an indispensable complement to clinical assessment. In this narrative review, we systematically describe the physical principles, clinical applications, and limitations of the imaging modalities currently available in critical care: chest X-ray (CXR), computed tomography (CT), lung ultrasound (LUS), electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and positron emission tomography (PET). CXR remains the most widely used bedside tool but is constrained by low sensitivity and significant interobserver variability. CT is the gold standard for morphological and quantitative lung phenotyping, enabling the assessment of recruitability, baby lung characterization, and the identification of complications, but requires patient transport and exposes patients to ionizing radiation. LUS offers real-time, bedside evaluation of aeration with high diagnostic accuracy for pneumothorax and pleural effusion, and is increasingly integrated into revised ARDS diagnostic criteria. EIT enables continuous, radiation-free monitoring of regional ventilation distribution and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-guided titration directly at the bedside. While PET provides unparalleled quantification of regional inflammation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch, it currently remains a purely investigative research tool. Finally, we discuss emerging technological and AI-driven advances-including dual-energy CT, next-generation EIT, and deep learning algorithms-that are poised to transform lung imaging from a passive diagnostic tool into an active, personalized guide to respiratory management.
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.