ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Serial lung ultrasound scoring for predicting invasive mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in European journal of 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) is the first-line respiratory support for preterm neonates with respiratory distress, but 15-30% fail and require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a radiation-free, point-of-care imaging modality with demonstrated superiority over chest radiography for diagnosing neonatal respiratory conditions, whose serial performance for predicting IMV across a broad preterm cohort is not well characterised. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serial LUS scores on Days 1-3 for predicting IMV within 7 days in preterm neonates (< 37 weeks), and to identify independent predictors of IMV. Methods: This prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study was conducted in a Level III NICU between November 2022 and November 2024. 207 preterm neonates with respiratory distress underwent standardised 6-zone, 18-point lung ultrasound (LUS) scoring on Days 1, 2, and 3. ROC analysis determined optimal LUS score cut-offs for predicting IMV, while multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors after multicollinearity assessment, model performance was evaluated using goodness-of-fit testing. Results: Among 207 preterm neonates (gestational age 32.5±2.5 weeks; birth weight 1779±626 g), 28 (13.5%) required IMV by Day 7. Day-1 LUS ≥4 predicted IMV with AUC 0.72 (95% CI 0.59-0.84), sensitivity 64%, specificity 78%, NPV 93%; Day-2 LUS ≥2 improved specificity (87%) and NPV (97%); Day-3 LUS showed limited accuracy (AUC 0.61). Surfactant use, shock, and SNAPPE-II score independently predicted the requirement of IMV within the first 7days of life.
conclusionsSerial lung ultrasound scoring demonstrated good clinical utility, with a high negative predictive value (NPV) of the Day-1 LUS score (cut-off ≥ 4) for identifying preterm neonates unlikely to require invasive mechanical ventilation within the first 7 days of life. Integration with clinical scoring may optimize early respiratory triaging in resource-limited NICUs. Multicentre validation against newer consensus frameworks is needed before routine adoption. WHAT IS KNOWN: • LUS is an accurate, radiation-free bedside tool for diagnosing neonatal respiratory disorders, predicting surfactantrequirement in preterm infants. • Most studies have used single-time-point LUS assessments and focused on a single outcome. WHAT IS NEW: •A Day-1 LUS score ≥4 identifi ed infants at low risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (NPV 93%). • Surfactant requirement (OR 28.60), shock (OR 6.18), and SNAPPE-II (OR 1.06 per point) independently predictedIMV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525288What 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.