Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42671769›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026

Accuracy of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aadil Bharwani, Wisarut Bunchit, Razak Pirani, Teruko Kishibe, Federico Angriman, Niall D Ferguson, Emanuele Pivetta, Alberto Goffi, Bram Rochwerg

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Aadil BharwaniInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. aadil.bharwani@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9944-9005
Wisarut BunchitInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Razak PiraniDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Teruko KishibeLibrary Services, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Federico AngrimanInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Niall D FergusonInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Departments of Medicine and Physiology, Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Emanuele PivettaDivision of Emergency Medicine and High Dependency Unit, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Alberto GoffiInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Bram RochwergDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDiagnosing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) traditionally relies upon chest radiography or computed tomography for radiologic criteria. Recent recommendations have proposed lung ultrasonography (LUS) as an alternative modality; however, the evidence supporting its utility remains uncertain. We sought to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for ARDS.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase®, and the Web of Science™ from inception through 16 May 2025, for original studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of LUS to computed tomography or chest x-ray for ARDS diagnosis. We performed a diagnostic meta-analysis assessing lung ultrasound for ARDS, assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool, and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.

resultsOur systematic review included 22 studies comparing LUS with a reference test using different scanning protocols and diagnostic thresholds, with variable interrater reliability. We included 13 studies in the meta-analysis (n = 1,999 patients, of which 618 [30.9%] had ARDS). The sensitivity of lung ultrasonography for ARDS was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.81; I

conclusionsLung ultrasound is a better tool for diagnosing ARDS (higher specificity) than for ruling it out (moderate sensitivity). There was important between-study heterogeneity, including differences in scanning protocols and diagnostic thresholds, which was incorporated into the certainty of evidence assessments. These findings highlight the potential utility of lung ultrasound in ARDS diagnosis. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42023468933 ); first submitted 5 October 2023.

Indexed as

ARDSdiagnostic accuracylung ultrasoundrespiratory failure

Identifiers

PMID42671769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.