ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Lung ultrasound in UIP and NSIP: clinical and functional associations.
Article in BMC pulmonary 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated lung ultrasound (LUS) for distinguishing nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) from usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and its association with clinical and functional parameters.
methodsSeventy-six patients with HRCT-diagnosed UIP (n = 42) or NSIP (n = 34) underwent LUS. We analyzed clinical characteristic and LUS parameters, including coalescent (c-LUSS), quantitative (q-LUSS), and pleural scores. Logistic and linear regressions identified LUS parameters associated with UIP/NSIP and pulmonary function tests. ROC analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of sex combined with pleural line total score.
resultsPatients with UIP had higher pleural line total, morphology, disruption, and fragmentation scores (all P < 0.05). Adjusted models identified several independent predictors distinguishing NSIP from UIP, notably the c-LUSS plus pleural line total score (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.12), q-LUSS plus pleural line total score (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), and pleural line total score (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03-1.22), alongside specific morphological subscores. The c-LUSS plus pleural line total score (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.23), q-LUSS plus pleural line total score (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.01-1.2), pleural line total score (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1-1.29), pleural thickness score (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.02-1.85) remained independently associated with the severe FEV1. Meanwhile, the q-LUSS (β: -5.88; 95% CI: -11.33 to - 0.44) and B-line score of 3 or more (β: -7.01; 95% CI: -13.48 to - 0.54) were independently associated with 6MWD in UIP/NSIP patients. Whereas, these LUS indicators cannot reliably predict the severity of diffusion dysfunction indexed by DLCO % predicted (all P > 0.05). Combining sex and pleural line total score yielded an AUC of 0.782 (95% CI: 0.677-0.887, bootstrap C-index: 0.772).
conclusionsLUS, especially pleural assessment, may support differentiation between UIP and NSIP, but it cannot replace HRCT or multidisciplinary assessment. It exhibits relatively low performance in evaluating the severity of pulmonary diffusion dysfunction. Further external validation is still needed.
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.