SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for transient tachypnea of the newborn: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of lung ultrasound (LUS) for diagnosing transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) through a meta-analysis. Methods: Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, and Embase databases without restrictions on language or publication date, up to December 31, 2025. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of LUS for TTN were included. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Statistical analyses were performed using Meta-DiSc 1.4, Stata 18.0 and RevMan 5.4 software. Results: Ten studies comprising 1,747 newborns were included in the analysis. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Threshold analysis indicated no threshold effect. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of LUS for diagnosing TTN were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.98), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), 81.64 (95% CI: 26.19-254.45), and 0.07 (95% CI: 0.02-0.24), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 1113.94 (95% CI: 143.77-8631.13), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97. Meta-regression demonstrated that LUS exhibited significant diagnostic accuracy for TTN. Conclusion: LUS is a promising modality for diagnosing TTN; however, its diagnostic accuracy varies considerably depending on study design and diagnostic criteria. Further studies are warranted to validate the utility of LUS in the diagnosis of TTN.
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.