ReviewCureus2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound for Pneumonia in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in an effort to evaluate the accuracy of using lung ultrasound (LUS) in the diagnosis of pneumonia in adult patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) compared to the standard of care. The search involved obtaining data through the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar and was conducted from inception until May 2026 to identify eligible studies. We included adult patients admitted to the ICU who were diagnosed with pneumonia on admission or developed pneumonia while in the ICU as hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Those patients were evaluated by bedside LUS for the diagnosis of pneumonia, and their results were compared to the standard of care. A total of 2,704 articles were identified. Six studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, presenting a total of 518 patients enrolled and 275 patients diagnosed with pneumonia using the standard of care, which included chest X-ray (CXR), CT scan of the chest, laboratory and culture data, biomarkers, or clinical diagnosis by the provider. The mean age was 63.9 years. 71.2% of patients were male, and 28.8% were female. The estimated summary measures of sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) of LUS were calculated as 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.98, p<0.01) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.80, p<0.01), respectively. Heterogeneity was moderate for both SE (I2=32.68, 2=0.38) and SP (I2=13.17, 2=0.15). The LUS application in the ICU has a high SE and moderate SP in the diagnosis of pneumonia in adult patients compared to the standard of care. Larger cohorts and data collection with analysis are needed to further understand and optimize protocols for LUS in the ICU to better inform the management of patients with pneumonia.
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.