
==== Front
Can J Respir Ther
Can J Respir Ther
3251
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR
1205-9838
2368-6820
Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists Website: Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy

38299193
92182
10.29390/001c.92182
Review Article
Point-of-care lung ultrasound in detecting pneumonia: A systematic review
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0594-9431
Abid Iqra Writing – original draft Conceptualization Project administration 1
Qureshi Nadia Writing – review & editing Data curation 2
Lategan Nicola Writing – review & editing 1
Williams Simon Supervision 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5799-9896
Shahid Sidra Data curation 4
1 Respiratory Therapy Services Sidra Medical and Research Center https://ror.org/03acdk243
2 Alberta Health Services Respiratory Health Section, Medicine Strategic Clinical Network
3 University of South Wales https://ror.org/02mzn7s88
4 Bahria University https://ror.org/02v8d7770
Corresponding author:iqraabidali@gmail.com
Programme Leader, PGDip/MSc Obesity and Weight Management & MSc Ethics Application Assessor

29 1 2024
2024
60 Vol. 60, Issue 1, 2024 3748
2 10 2023
9 12 2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Purpose

Limited evidence exists to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) across all age groups. This review aimed to investigate the benefits of point-of-care LUS for the early diagnosis of pneumonia compared to traditional chest X-rays (CXR) in a subgroup analysis including pediatric, adult, and geriatric populations.

Material and Methods

This systematic review examined systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original research from 2017 to 2021, comparing point-of-care LUS and CXR in diagnosing pneumonia among adults, pediatrics and geriatrics. Studies lacking direct comparison or exploring diseases other than pneumonia, case reports, and those examining pneumonia secondary to COVID-19 variants were excluded. The search utilized PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases with specific search strings. The study selection, conducted by two independent investigators, demonstrated an agreement by the Kappa index, ensuring reliable article selection. The QUADAS-2 tool assessed the selected studies for quality, highlighting risk of bias and applicability concerns across key domains. Statistical analysis using Stata Version 16 determined pooled sensitivity and specificity via a bivariate model, emphasizing LUS and CXR diagnostic capabilities. Additionally, RevMan 5.4.1 facilitated the calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), offering insights into diagnostic accuracy.

Results

The search, conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases by two independent investigators, initially identified 1045 articles. Following screening processes, 12 studies comprised a sample size of 2897. LUS demonstrated a likelihood ratio of 5.09, a specificity of 81.91%, and a sensitivity of 92.13% in detecting pneumonia in pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients, with a p-value of 0.0002 and a 95% confidence interval, indicating diagnostic accuracy ranging from 84.07% to 96.29% when compared directly to CXR.

Conclusion

Our review supports that LUS can play a valuable role in detecting pneumonia early with high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy across diverse patient demographics, including pediatric, adult, and geriatric populations. Since it overcomes most of the limitations of CXR and other diagnostic modalities, it can be utilized as a diagnostic tool for pneumonia for all age groups as it is a safe, readily available, and cost-effective modality that can be utilized in an emergency department, intensive care units, wards, and clinics by trained respiratory care professionals.

“lung ultrasound versus chest x-ray
pneumonia
accuracy
senstivity
specificity
training
knowledge
ICU
emergency
wards
This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)1 and the British Lung Foundation2 define pneumonia as an acute lung infection caused by viruses, bacteria, and fungi resulting in accumulation of fluid and pus at the level of the alveoli, causing difficulty in oxygenation. According to a report by the World Health Organization,3 it is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity around the world.

In clinical settings, the diagnosis of pneumonia relies on clinical presentation, primary pathology, and laboratory results and often includes chest radiography.4 This radiographic assessment plays a pivotal role in evaluating the severity of pneumonia. In contrast, it has some limitations, such as the fact that many physiological structures may mask pathologic manifestations like consolidations, granulomas, cysts, and adenopathy.5 Interpretation may vary based on the interpreter’s knowledge and experience of patient positioning, time to process, cost of the x-ray and radiation exposure may also limit its usefulness.6

Significant health and financial burdens can be incurred as a result of pneumonia.7 Despite significant developments in treatment approaches, the clinical burden of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is increasing. Early discovery of the disease and timely treatment can minimize mortality. Blood cultures, sputum cultures, bronchoscopy, pulse oximetry, and CXRs can be used to identify pneumonia. To interpret X-ray images precisely, an experienced radiologist is required; however, two-thirds of the world lacks adequate radiological services.8 Due to the lack of resources and hospital facilities in low-income countries, diagnosis becomes more difficult when there are fewer trained healthcare personnel or old technology is available. X-rays are traditionally used to diagnose disease, but they are limited or can lead to misdiagnosis and an increase in the patient’s financial burden.9 Using X-rays is always challenging since technical training is necessary first.10 Furthermore, an extensive study is required to analyze the medical images, which makes it difficult for radiologists to interpret and diagnose based on CXRs alone. Studies have found that this can have a substantial impact on patients’ treatment, morbidity, and mortality in low-income countries.10,11

Advances in diagnostic radiology provide a less invasive, non-radiating, simple tool to improve the diagnosis of pneumonia through point-of-care LUS.12,13 The use of point-of-care LUS now extends far beyond intensive care and can be beneficial in cardiac emergencies and interventional laboratories.14,15

The most common findings for diagnosing early pneumonia via LUS are scattered or irregular margins at the subsequent area with loss of A-lines known as the shred sign or by liver-shaped echogenicity resulting from fluid-filled alveoli, or tissue-like appearance of an area seen more frequently on B mode may indicate pneumonia.16,17

LUS consists of two basic modes: brightness B-mode and M-mode. B-mode, or monochrome or two-dimensional mode, is the most fundamental mode and refers to the conventional black-and-white image displayed on the ultrasound display (Figure 1). The motion mode or M-mode is used to visualize movement activities or analyze an object’s motion (Figure 2). The vertical axis represents movement in a single-dimensional plane, while the horizontal axis represents time. Lung and pleural structures and pathologies such as pneumothorax and pleural effusion are easily identified in this mode.18

192442 Figure 1. Normal LUS with a Bat sign and A-lines in B-mode.18

The A-line is a manifestation of air in a healthy lung. They are horizontal, regularly spaced hyper-echoic lines representing reverberations of the pleural line.19

192443 Figure 2. Normal LUS with normal M-mode seashore sign.18

B-lines are small, well-defined comet tail-like artifacts arising perpendicularly from the pleural line (Figure 2a). During respiration, these lines move along the pleural line and may erase A-lines. One or two B-lines may be seen per intercostal space in 30% of healthy individuals, particularly in dependent regions of the lung20 B-lines indicate filling of the interstitial space and are often observed in pulmonary edema.21

192444 Figure 2a. B-lines.18

The C lines are defined as hypoechoic sub-pleural focal images produced by condensed lung tissue without the presence of the visceral pleural line gap. They are typically conical or dome-shaped, thus the name cupola (Figure 2b). C lines are not true lines but are designated as such in order to maintain consistency.22

192445 Figure 2b. C-lines.18

Typical patterns of ultrasound imaging are seen at various scanning points during the diagnosis of pneumonia. From the anterior perspective, typical C-lines identified by a curvilinear aspect of the pleural line are caused by adjacent consolidated tissue; as in pneumonia, the alveoli are filled with fluid (Figure 3). The non-aerated lung tissue is thus readily transverse by ultrasound beams, producing an image comparable with liver tissue.7,18

192446 Figure 3. Consolidated lung and pleural effusion in with air bronchogram and shred sign.18

Nearly all consolidations touch the pleural line. As a result of gravity, consolidation usually appears first at the posterior-lateral point. By looking for air Bronchogram or the shred sign, pneumonia can be further analyzed. This is caused by the reflection of ultrasound beams in air-filled bronchi surrounded by consolidated tissue. The shred sign appears when the border between aerated and consolidated lung is not clearly defined.23

Methods

Point-of-care LUS may improve patient care in terms of availability, accuracy, and reliability24,25 This systematic review aims to define the benefits of point-of-care LUS over CXR when diagnosing pneumonia among pediatric, adult & geriatric patient populations.

Original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published between 2017 and 2021 comparing X-rays to point-of-care LUS for diagnosing pneumonia were included in this review.

The decision to limit the scope of this study from 2017 to 2021 is due to capturing the most recent data that compares these two modalities in diagnosing pneumonia. This timeframe aligns with the rapid progression of imaging techniques and diagnostic protocols within the specified period. However, considering the ongoing advancements in medical technology and the use of LUS, extending the review beyond this timeframe could provide a more comprehensive perspective on the trends and further enrich the analysis. Additionally, only English-language articles were included. Case reports and the studies performed on COVID-19 and its variants to detect pneumonia were excluded from the study.

The search was performed utilizing PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using the flowing search string: “Lung ultrasound” or point of care “lung ultrasound” versus “chest x-ray” and “pneumonia,” “Accuracy” and “Specificity” or “sensitivity” and training or” knowledge” in “ICU” or “Emergency”.

Two independent investigators conducted the article selection process. The inter-rater agreement was assessed using the kappa coefficient, a measure of agreement that considers the possibility of chance agreement. The Kappa coefficient for the two investigators was 1.00, indicating an almost perfect level of agreement. This high level of agreement suggests that the article selection process is reliable and that the selected articles are likely to be of high quality.

The quality of the selected studies was reviewed according to the quality assessment tool (QUADAS-2). The tool consists of 4 key elements, including patient selection, reference standard, index test, and flow and timing. Each domain is judged on two main components (a) risk of bias and (b) concern to judge applicability. Both these domains are rated on a scale of high, unclear, and low. The QUADAS-2 tool evaluation is presented in the supplementary information (Appendix A).

Stata Version 16 was utilized in the analysis process. The estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity are obtained using a bivariate model of the selected data. The bivariate model analyzes the specificity and sensitivity of the study through a random effect. All the results were presented with a CI of 95%. Furthermore, RevMan 5.4.1 is utilized to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of both LUS and CXR. Furthermore, the odds and risk ratio were also calculated.

Results

Details regarding the study selection are presented in Figure 4. The search yielded 1045 articles. We included 12 studies involving 2897 patients who underwent qualitative assessment.

192447 Figure 4. PRISMA diagram.

Summary of the study design

From Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane, 1045 articles were identified. After reviewing the title and abstract, 286 studies were selected for review of the literature, methodology, and result sections. Applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 77 articles were excluded after full-text screening. During the data extraction process, a further 65 articles were excluded, while an additional 132 articles were excluded due to incomplete information. Twelve studies, comprising a sample size of 2897, met the criteria for qualitative analysis.

Study characteristics

The main characteristics of the retrieved study are shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the sample size selected from the 12 retrieved studies ranged between 28-1637, and all studies were published between 2017 and 2021. Among all the studies, only one study26 enrolled neonatal patients, while 3 included the pediatric population.13,27,28 In terms of study design, all the selective studies were prospective and observational in nature. Furthermore, nine studies utilized the blinding method13,25,27–33 (see Table 2).

Demographic details of studies

192448 Table 1. Demographic details for LUS in the selected studies.

Study ID	Group	Sex	POCUS Technique and Operator Knowledge Level	Department	Study Design	Diagnostic Criteria	Blinding	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity	Specificity	
Ali 2019	Adult	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	ICU	Nil	Nil	Yes	50	1	6	43	0.89 [0.78,0.96]	0.98 [0.88,1.00]	
Amatya et al., 2018	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Department	Prospective	Presence of unilateral B-lines or Subpleural lung consolidations	Yes	40	7	4	11	0.91 [0.78,0.97]	0.61 [0.36,0.83]	
Biagi et al., 2018	Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Critical Care Unit / ICU	Prospective	Nil	Nil	31	10	1	45	0.97 [0.84,1.00]	0.82 [0.69,0.91]	
Gaber et al., 2020	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Critical Care Department	Prospective	Patients aged >18 years presenting with chest infection symptoms	Yes	22	0.1	2		0.92 [0.73,0.99]	1.00 [0.03,1.00]	
Gao et al., 2020	Neonates	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency	Prospective	Including rales, rhonchi, wheezing bronchial respiratory	Nil	176	15	18	0.09	0.92 [0.73,0.99]	0.80 [0.69,0.88]	
Haggag et al., 2019	Adults	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Pediatric Department	Prospective	Infection at the pleural level	Yes	65	5	0.1	0.12	1.00 [0.94,1.00]	0.86 [0.70,0.95]	
Karimi et al., 2019	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Department	Prospective	Cough, mental confusion, unexplained fever in the absence of localized breath sound	Yes	263	0.1	17	0.06	0.94 [0.90,0.96]	Not estimable	
Lameh et al., 2019	Children	Male	Yes, Expert	Pediatric clinic	Prospective	Nil	No	0.1	0.1	0.1	Not estimable	Not estimable	Not estimable	
Linsalata et al., 2020	Geriatric	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Chest Disease	Prospective	Dyspnea, cough, fever, laboratory alterations	Yes	92	7	4	0.44	0.96 [0.90,0.99]	0.81 [0.65,0.92]	
Man et al., 2017	Children	Female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Department	Prospective	Nil	No	57	5	15	0.12	0.79 [0.68,0.88]	0.44 [0.14,0.79]	
Sayed Kiywy, 2018	Geriatric	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Geriatric Clinic	Prospective	Including rales, chonchi, wheezing bronchial respiratory	Yes	16	2	2	0.26	0.89 [0.65,0.99]	0.86 [0.57,0.98]	
Sood et al., 2018	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Pediatric Ward	Prospective	Including rales, chonchi, wheezing bronchial respiratory	Yes	192	0.1	8	0.04	0.96 [0.92,0.98]	Not estimable	

192449 Table 2. Demographic details for chest Xray (CXR) in the selected studies.

Study ID	Group	Sex	X-ray technique and Operator Knowledge Level	Department	Study Design	Diagnostic Criteria	Blinding	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity	Specificity	
Ali 2019	Adult	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	ICU	Nil	Nil	Yes	34	4	22	40	0.61 [0.47,0.74]	0.98 [0.88,1.00]	
Amatya et al., 2018	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Department	Prospective	Presence of unilateral B-lines or Subpleural lung consolidations	Yes	32	9	12	9	0.73 [0.57,0.85]	0.61 [0.36,0.83]	
Biagi et al., 2018	Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Critical Care Unit / ICU	Prospective	Nil	Nil	53	8	1	0	0.98 [0.90,1.00]	0.82 [0.69,0.91]	
Gaber et al., 2020	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Critical Care Department	Prospective	Patients aged >18 years presenting with chest infection symptoms	Yes	18	22	0	0	1.00 [0.81,1.00]	1.00 [0.03,1.00]	
Gao et al., 2020	Neonates	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency	Prospective	Including rales, rhonchi, wheezing bronchial respiratory	Nil	156	20	21	72	0.88 [0.82,0.93]	0.80 [0.69,0.88]	
Haggag et al., 2019	Adults	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Pediatric Department	Prospective	Infection at the pleural level	Yes	13	2	5	80	0.72 [0.47,0.90]	0.86 [0.70,0.95]	
Karimi et al., 2019	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Department	Prospective	Cough, mental confusion, unexplained fever in the absence of localized breath sound	Yes	232	0	48	0	0.83 [0.78,0.87]	Not estimable	
Lameh et al., 2019	Children	Male	Yes, Expert	Pediatric clinic	Prospective	Nil	No	46	1	2	81	0.96[0.86,0.99]	Not estimable	
Linsalata et al., 2020	Geriatric	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Chest Disease	Prospective	Dyspnea, cough, fever, laboratory alterations	Yes	30	27	15	60	0.67 [0.51,0.80]	0.81 [0.65,0.92]	
Man et al., 2017	Children	Female	Yes, Expert	Emergency Department	Prospective	Nil	No	74	1	5	1	0.94 [0.86,0.98]	0.44 [0.14,0.79]	
SayedKiywy, 2018	Geriatric	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Geriatric Clinic	Prospective	Including rales, chonchi, wheezing bronchial respiratory	Yes	24	2	6	0	0.80[0.61,0.2]	0.86 [0.57,0.98]	
Sood et al., 2018	Adults and Children	Both Male and female	Yes, Expert	Pediatric Ward	Prospective	Including rales, chonchi, wheezing bronchial respiratory	Yes	196	0	4	0	0.98 [0.95,0.99]	Not estimable	

Table 3 provides a clear snapshot of essential findings from 12 important studies that directly compare the effectiveness of LUS and CXR in diagnosing pneumonia. Table 3 summarizes key details as to how often each method correctly identifies pneumonia (PPV and NPV), their ability to adjust the likelihood of pneumonia (Positive and Negative Likelihood Ratios), and the prevalence of pneumonia within the studied groups.

192450 Table 3. Test characteristics of lung ultrasonography (LUS) and chest radiography (CXR).

	LUS	CXR	
Study ID	PPV	NPV	LR+	LR-	Prevalence	PPV	NPV	LR+	LR-	Prevalence	
Ali 2019	0.98	0.87	39.2	0.1	0.56	0.89	0.64	6.67	0.43	0.56	
Amatya 2018	0.85	0.73	2.33	0.14	0.7	0.78	0.42	1.45	0.54	0.7	
Biagi 2018	0.75	0.97	5.32	0.03	0.36	0.86	0	0.98	0	0.87	
Gaber 2020	1	0.3	0	0.08	0.96	0.45	0	1	0	0.45	
Gao 2020	0.91	0.76	4.53	0.11	0.72	0.88	0.78	4.05	0.15	0.65	
Haggag 2019	0.92	1	7	0	0.65	0.86	0.94	29.6	0.28	0.18	
Karimi 2019	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	
Lameh 2019	0	0	0	0	0	0.97	0.97	78.58	0.04	0.36	
Linsalata 2020	0.93	0.88	5.06	0.05	0.72	0.52	0.8	2.14	0.48	0.34	
Man 2017	0.91	0.21	1.42	0.46	0.88	0.98	0.16	1.87	0.12	0.97	
SAYEDKIWY 2018	0.88	0.85	6.2	0.12	0.56	0.92	0	0.8	0	0.93	
Sood 2018	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	

Diagnostic accuracy of LUS and CXR

Drawing insights from 12 selected studies, the confluence of data reveals a consolidated sensitivity of 92.13% (95% CI: 84.07 to 96.29) for LUS. Concurrently, the pooled specificity emerges at 81.91% (95% CI: 72.71 to 88.50), accompanied by a Diagnostic Odds Ratio of 53.05%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios stand at 5.09 and 0.096, respectively. With the same set of 12 studies, CXR unfurls a pooled sensitivity of 64% (95% CI: 31.11 to 95.46). Notably, CXR exhibits higher specificity at 94.3%.95% CI: 79.09 to 98.65), while the Diagnostic Odds Ratio is 29.76%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios stand at 11.34 and 0.380, offering significant insights, respectively.

192451 Figure 5. Forest plot for CXR sensitivity and specificity.

192452 Figure 6. Forest plot for LUS sensitivity and specificity.

Odds Ratio

Figure 7 illustrates the Odds Ratio under the Random Model, with a Chi-squared value of 103.62 (p < 0.00001), demonstrating significant deviation from expected values. A substantial I2 value of 89% suggests notable study heterogeneity. The Z-score of 3.71 further reinforces the statistical significance, affirming the meaningfulness of the Odds Ratio assessment within our study’s context.

192453 Figure 7. Odds Ratio under the Random Model.

Risk Difference

Risk difference is graphically presented under a Random Model. The statistical analysis reveals a significant Chi-squared value of 341.65 (p < 0.00001), indicating a substantial departure from expected values. The high I2 value of 97% suggests notable heterogeneity across the included studies. The Z-score of 3.19 further supports the statistical significance, reinforcing the importance of the observed risk difference within the framework of our study.

The comprehensive analysis of 12 studies illuminates the pooled sensitivity of LUS, at 92.13%, demonstrating its ability to accurately identify positive cases across diverse populations. In parallel, CXR displays a sensitivity of 64%. LUS reveals a pooled specificity of 81.91%, effectively categorizing negative cases, while CXR showcases a notably higher specificity of 94.3%. Moreover, the Diagnostic Odds Ratio underlines LUS’s diagnostic capacity with a value of 53.05%, compared to CXR’s, i.e., 29.76%. Positive and negative likelihood ratios provide further insights into its efficacy. Statistical significance, confirmed by Chi-squared tests and P-values, supports these findings. The substantial heterogeneity across studies accentuates the nuanced nature of pneumonia diagnosis methods. This comprehensive analysis provides healthcare practitioners with valuable insights to inform their diagnostic decisions and enhanced patient care strategies.

192454 Figure 8. The risk difference between CXR and LUS.

Discussion

We conducted a systematic review to assess LUS’s sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy as a diagnostic tool. Also, we assessed the benefits of point-of-care LUS over CXR when diagnosing pneumonia in pediatric, adult and geriatric patients compared with other systematic reviews addressing these modalities.24,34–36

CXR Vs LUS in geriatric population for detecting pneumonia

LUS was found to be more specific and sensitive for diagnosing pneumonia in geriatric patients. The study utilized LUS on the second day of admission for the patients who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia.23,37

The sensitivity of LUS was 91.67 %, whereas the sensitivity of CXR was 75.83%, and the specificity was 71%. A meta-analysis included ten studies in which LUS and CXR were compared. Six of the studies included geriatric patients admitted to the emergency department for pneumonia, while four of the studies included critically ill patients. Using ultrasound as the diagnostic modality, it was found that the pooled sensitivity of using ultrasound was 94%, and the specificity was 96% for the detection of pneumonia.34

In another study, LUS also exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy, with a sensitivity of 91%, compared to the lower sensitivity of CXR at 67%. A CXR often misrepresents pneumonia and doesn’t identify it, exposing patients to ionizing radiation.32 Elderly patients were included in this study, of which 94 were diagnosed with acute pneumonia using LUS. In patients with pneumonia, LUS is the better modality based on the expert technical knowledge and competency of the person who performs it.25

Another study in the geriatric population also showed that LUS plays a significant role in the detection of pneumonia. This study found that false-positive cases were 6.2% and false-negative cases were 6.2%, while the sensitivity and specificity for LUS were both 87.5% and 89.3%, respectively. It is recommended that emergency care practitioners and intensive care specialists master this skill for better and more accurate diagnosis.38 The use of pulmonary sonography can assist in the diagnosis of the disease, and this tool is 83% specific and 85% sensitive. Contrary to other modalities such as CXRs, which can increase the cost of a hospital stay and also have a lower probability of correctly diagnosing a disease.33

CXR vs. LUS in pediatric for detecting pneumonia

LUS is becoming increasingly popular for diagnosing pneumonia among children. A study found that 72 out of 81 patients had pneumonia, which was diagnosed using radiography but later correctly identified using LUS. This study showed 72% sensitivity in detecting interstitial pneumonia. LUS is more accurate than CXR for identifying community-acquired pneumonia.27

Another study concluded that CXR is not accurate in diagnosing consolidation >1 cm, but LUS is able to do so with greater certainty. As an alternative to a chest radiograph, LUS can detect pneumonia in neonates with a higher degree of accuracy.13 Based on the study, LUS combined with other parameters for diagnosing pneumonia demonstrated better outcomes than using multiple parameters without ultrasound, proving it to be a highly recommended modality for identifying ventilator-associated pneumonia in children.39

CXR vs. LUS in adults for detecting pneumonia

Chest ultrasound is the most recommended and is gaining popularity because it is cost-effective, highly accurate, and has few side effects. The study reported LUS to have a higher degree of accuracy than CXR.31

X-rays of the chest are more dangerous due to the radiation emitted to obtain the film. They are also not cost-effective, and their reliability is always in doubt. With point-of-care LUS, diagnosing the disease more accurately, at a lower cost, and in a safer manner is possible. Additionally, it is cost-effective in low-income or low-resource countries like Pakistan or other developing nations.

Additionally, CXR for diagnosing pneumonia has lower accuracy and higher cost than LUS. In addition, this can delay the detection of the disease, which further reduces the chances of recovery.30 Also discussed is the effectiveness of LUS compared with CXR. In community-acquired pneumonia, when CXRs were first used, about 48% of cases were correctly diagnosed, while LUS helped to identify the disease in 70%of patients; however, computed tomography was the gold standard, which gave a 100% accuracy rate for diagnosis. A patient who is critically ill and on a ventilator may not be able to undergo computed tomography. As a result of its high cost in resource-limited countries, it also has limited fidelity.40 In contrast, LUS is cost-effective, portable, and has higher sensitivity and specificity.

Earlier diagnosis of pneumonia may lead to a better outcome, and this early diagnosis can be accomplished with LUS. According to the study, the cases that were confirmed using computed tomography but missed using LUS accounted for almost 6.1% of confirmed cases. In contrast, the missed cases due to chest radiography accounted for 17%. In this study, LUS sensitivity was 93% and CXR sensitivity was 82%.28,32

Limitations of LUS

Despite the benefits of LUS, there are some limitations to consider, the most prominent of which is operator skill. This illustrates the importance of properly understanding and practicing LUS skills in order to obtain reproducible results.41

LUS also has patient-dependent limitations, such as difficulty examining obese patients due to the thickness of the rib cage, the presence of subcutaneous emphysema, or large thoracic dressings, all of which can alter or obstruct the transmission of sound waves to the peripheral lung.

Additionally, LUS is unable to detect hyper-inflated lung fields that result from an increase in intrathoracic pressures. Pediatric LUS does not address certain features, such as hyperinflation and the shape and size of a child’s heart, as seen on a CXR of a child suffering from respiratory distress. To be comprehensive, LUS should take 15 minutes, and if the observer is skilled enough, it can be done more quickly.42

Training and Education of LUS

LUS chiefly depends on the operator’s skills, but it is currently not clear how long training should be for respiratory care professionals to become competent at ultrasound use, despite some researchers’ attempts to standardize skills.43 However, the utility of ultrasonography is increasing, and it is suggested that, with the right education, physicians and non-physicians would be able to adapt it into their clinical practice and use it frequently.44

In terms of duration and teaching methods, LUS training programs currently available differ significantly. A number of studies have shown that LUS skills can be acquired in two to four months of training and with 20 to 80 supervised scanning sessions. To demonstrate competency in LUS, some studies have emphasized the need for a minimum of 100 chest ultrasounds; however, others have emphasized a minimum of 30 minutes to 7 months of training.45,46

Nonetheless, the literature advocated for physicians to conduct frequent LUSs to attain competence in identifying conditions such as pleural effusion, pneumonia, and pulmonary edema within a span of six weeks.47

A study by Millington et al. presented the Assessment of Competency in Thoracic Sonography, a new scale, to assess the quality of point-of-care thoracic ultrasound performed by new learners. According to Millington and his colleagues, the scale was able to make valid judgments regarding the competency in point-of-care LUS, and the majority of learning improved during the first 25-30 practice sessions.48

A Delphi consensus49 demonstrated that LUS competency assessment is LUS-Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. A 26-element competency check covers six domains: indication for an LUS exam, systematic approach, technical skill, recognition and differentiation of normal anatomy from pathology, documentation and reporting, and diagnostic conclusion. According to the authors, this assessment tool provides a relevant, valid, and feasible way to assess the competency of operators from different medical specialties, including physicians and non-physicians.

To obtain LUS effectiveness in various clinical settings, such as acute care areas, operating rooms, and primary care clinics, an operator must be competent to unify six major areas of LUS (i.e., terminology, technology, technique, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and future research). Using a combination of theoretical and hands-on training, LUS can be advocated as a diagnostic tool for point-of-care clinical practice.50

Scope and Future Research

The scope of utilizing LUS for pneumonia diagnosis is extensive, offering opportunities for further exploration and advancement in clinical practice and research. As evidenced by our study, the diagnostic efficacy of LUS has been established across pediatric, adult, and geriatric populations. However, several aspects can give insight into the investigation to maximize its impact and applicability.

The development of comprehensive and standardized training programs for healthcare professionals, including respiratory care practitioners, physicians, and nurses, is essential. Focusing on skill acquisition, proper technique, and image interpretation will ensure consistent and accurate utilization of LUS for pneumonia diagnosis. Further research can explore the optimal duration, content, and methodology of these training programs to enhance proficiency and competency.

While our study highlights the benefits of LUS over CXRs, further comparative studies with other imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), will provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of each modality, aiding in evidence-based decision-making and further refining diagnostic protocols.

Investigating the direct impact of early pneumonia diagnosis through LUS on patient outcomes is an area of interest. Studies assessing factors like length of hospital stay, treatment efficacy, and overall patient well-being can provide valuable insights into how LUS influences clinical management and improves patient outcomes.

Moreover, the feasibility and impact of implementing LUS in resource-limited settings and low-income countries is crucial. Research could focus on adapting training programs to establish the local healthcare workforce, assessing the cost-effectiveness of LUS, and evaluating its potential to address diagnostic challenges in regions with limited access to radiological facilities.

Investigation into specific subgroups within the pediatric population, such as neonates and infants, can also provide nuanced insights into the diagnostic accuracy and challenges of LUS. Tailoring training programs and diagnostic criteria to accommodate the unique physiological characteristics of these subgroups could enhance the utility of LUS in the pediatric population.

Further, collaborations between professional medical associations, regulatory bodies, and researchers are essential for integrating LUS into clinical practice guidelines. Future research could contribute to the development of evidence-based recommendations for incorporating LUS as a routine diagnostic tool for pneumonia across various healthcare settings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the application of LUS for pneumonia diagnosis has demonstrated remarkable potential across different age groups. As researchers continue to investigate and refine its utilization, the scope for improving diagnostic accuracy, patient outcomes, and healthcare practices remains vast. Future research endeavors should aim to address the aforementioned areas, ultimately advancing our understanding of LUS’s role in pneumonia management and enhancing its integration into clinical care.

Competing interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not required for this article type.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary information

Appendix A

Acknowledgement

We extend our gratitude to Pieter Roel Tuinman (Tuinman, P.R.)18 for generously allowing us to use images from their institution’s research. Additionally, we secured permission from the Netherlands Journal of Internal Medicine editors to utilize Pieter Tuniman’s research images published in their journal.
==== Refs
Pneumonia Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/pneumonia/causes.html
Pneumonia British Lung Foundation https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/pneumonia/what-is-pneumonia
Pneumonia World Health Organization https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/pneumonia
NICE community-acquired pneumonia guideline review Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed Murphy S Thomson L 2021
106 5 296 298 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319376 33214240
Guidelines for the use of chest radiographs in community-acquired pneumonia in children and adolescents Pediatric Radiology Andronikou Savvas Lambert Elena Halton Jarred Hilder Lucy Crumley Iona Lyttle Mark D. Kosack Cara Springer Science and Business Media LLC 21 9 2017
47 11 1405 1411 0301-0449 10.1007/s00247-017-3944-4 10.1007/s00247-017-3944-4 29043422
Early Chest Computed Tomography Scan to Assist Diagnosis and Guide Treatment Decision for Suspected Community-acquired Pneumonia American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Claessens Yann-Erick Debray Marie-Pierre Tubach Florence Brun Anne-Laure Rammaert Blandine Hausfater Pierre Naccache Jean-Marc Ray Patrick Choquet Christophe Carette Marie-France Mayaud Charles Leport Catherine Duval Xavier American Thoracic Society 15 10 2015
192 8 974 982 1073-449X 10.1164/rccm.201501-0017oc 10.1164/rccm.201501-0017oc
Identification and classification of pneumonia disease using a deep learning-based intelligent computational framework Neural Computing and Applications Yi Rong Tang Lanying Tian Yuqiu Liu Jie Wu Zhihui 2023
35 20 14473 14486 0941-0643 10.1007/s00521-021-06102-7 10.1007/s00521-021-06102-7 34035563
Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America 15 2 2005
171 4 388 416 1073-449X 10.1164/rccm.200405-644st 10.1164/rccm.200405-644st
Lung ultrasound as a diagnostic tool for radiographically-confirmed pneumonia in low resource settings Respiratory Medicine Ellington Laura E. Gilman Robert H. Chavez Miguel A. Pervaiz Farhan Marin-Concha Julio Compen-Chang Patricia Riedel Stefan Rodriguez Shalim J. Gaydos Charlotte Hardick Justin Tielsch James M. Steinhoff Mark Benson Jane May Evelyn A. Figueroa-Quintanilla Dante Checkley William 7 2017
128 57 64 0954-6111 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.05.007 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.05.007 28610670
Implementation of lung ultrasound in low- to middle-income countries: a new challenge global health? European Journal of Pediatrics Buonsenso Danilo De Rose Cristina 2022
181 1 1 8 0340-6199 10.1007/s00431-021-04179-9 10.1007/s00431-021-04179-9 34216270
Identifying pneumonia in chest X-rays: A deep learning approach Measurement Jaiswal Amit Kumar Tiwari Prayag Kumar Sachin Gupta Deepak Khanna Ashish Rodrigues Joel J. 10 2019
145 511 518 0263-2241 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.05.076 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.05.076
Role of thoracic ultrasound in the diagnosis of pneumonia Sobh E Oraby S Gamal F https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/50/suppl_61/PA4113.abstract
Lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumonia in children with acute bronchiolitis BMC Pulmonary Medicine Biagi Carlotta Pierantoni Luca Baldazzi Michelangelo Greco Laura Dormi Ada Dondi Arianna Faldella Giacomo Lanari Marcello 12 2018
18 1 191 1471-2466 10.1186/s12890-018-0750-1 10.1186/s12890-018-0750-1 30526548
Application of Lung Ultrasound in Critical Care Setting: A Review Cureus Raheja Ronak Brahmavar Megha Joshi Dhruv Raman Dileep 25 7 2019
11 7 e5233 2168-8184 10.7759/cureus.5233 10.7759/cureus.5233 31565634
Lung Ultrasound Findings Are Associated with Mortality and Need for Intensive Care Admission in COVID-19 Patients Evaluated in the Emergency Department Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology Bonadia Nicola Carnicelli Annamaria Piano Alfonso Buonsenso Danilo Gilardi Emanuele Kadhim Cristina Torelli Enrico Petrucci Martina Di Maurizio Luca Biasucci Daniele Guerino Fuorlo Mariella Forte Evelina Zaccaria Raffaella Franceschi Francesco 11 2020
46 11 2927 2937 0301-5629 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.005 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.005 32798003
Lung Ultrasound: The Emerging Role of Respiratory Therapists Respiratory Care Karthika Manjush Wong Duane Nair Suresh G Pillai Lalitha V Mathew Chris Sara Daedalus Enterprises 15 1 2019
64 2 217 229 0020-1324 10.4187/respcare.06179 10.4187/respcare.06179
Prognostic role of ultrasonographic air bronchogram in management of pneumoniae in children Eur Respir J Inchingolo Riccardo Copetti Roberto Gerardi Rafael Emanuele Smargiassi Andrea Conte Emanuele Giovanni Corbo Giuseppe Maria Gatto Antonio Pierandrei Chiara Capossela Lavinia Lazzareschi Ilaria Valentini Piero Richeldi Luca 28 9 2019
54 4824 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa4824 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa4824
Lung ultrasound: routine practice for the next generation of internists Neth J Med Touw H.R. Tuinman P.R. Gelissen H.P. Lust E. Elbers P.W. 2015
73 3 100 107 25852109
Ultrasound diagnosis of alveolar consolidation in the critically ill Intensive Care Medicine Lichtenstein Daniel A. Lascols Nathalie Mezière Gilbert Gepner Agnès Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2 2004
30 2 276 281 0342-4642 10.1007/s00134-003-2075-6 10.1007/s00134-003-2075-6
Emerging roles for transthoracic ultrasonography in pulmonary diseases World Journal of Radiology Sartori Sergio Tombesi P 2010
2 6 203 214 1949-8470 10.4329/wjr.v2.i6.203 10.4329/wjr.v2.i6.203 21160632
AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Topics in US: B-mode US: basic concepts and new technology Radiographics Hangiandreou Nicholas J. 7 2003
23 4 1019 1033 0271-5333 10.1148/rg.234035034 10.1148/rg.234035034 12853678
Extended Lung Ultrasound to Differentiate Between Pneumonia and Atelectasis in Critically Ill Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study Critical Care Medicine Haaksma Mark E. Smit Jasper M. Heldeweg Micah L. A. Nooitgedacht Jip S. de Grooth Harm J. Jonkman Annemijn H. Girbes Armand R. J. Heunks Leo Tuinman Pieter R. 2022
50 5 750 759 0090-3493 10.1097/ccm.0000000000005303 10.1097/ccm.0000000000005303 34582414
Ultrasound Diagnosis of Pneumonia | Emory School of Medicine Lefkove 2013
https://med.emory.edu/departments/emergency-medicine/sections/ultrasound/case-of-the-month/lung/pneumonia.html
Systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of ultrasound versus radiology in diagnosing of pneumonia Critical Ultrasound Journal Alzahrani Saeed Ali Al-Salamah Majid Abdulatief Al-Madani Wedad Hussain Elbarbary Mahmoud A. 27 2 2017
9 1 6 2036-3176 10.1186/s13089-017-0059-y 10.1186/s13089-017-0059-y 28244009
Pneumonia Lung Ultrasound Score (PLUS): A New Tool for Detecting Pneumonia in the Oldest Patients Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Linsalata Giuseppe Okoye Chukwuma Antognoli Rachele Guarino Daniela Ravenna Virginia Orsitto Eugenio Calsolaro Valeria Monzani Fabio 17 8 2020
68 12 2855 2862 0002-8614 10.1111/jgs.16783 10.1111/jgs.16783
Lung ultrasound completely replaced chest X-ray for diagnosing neonatal lung diseases: a 3-year clinical practice report from a neonatal intensive care unit in China The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Gao Yue-Qiao Qiu Ru-Xin Liu Jing Zhang Li Ren Xiao-Ling Qin Sheng-Juan 2022
35 18 3565 3572 1476-7058 10.1080/14767058.2020.1830369 10.1080/14767058.2020.1830369 33032479
Performance of lung ultrasonography for the diagnosis of communityacquired pneumonia in hospitalized children Medical Ultrasonography Man Sorin Claudiu Fufezan Otilia Sas Valentina Schnell Cristina 10 5 2017
19 3 276 281 2066-8643 10.11152/mu-1027 10.11152/mu-1027
Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound in Detecting Causes of Pediatric Chest X-Ray Opacity Turkish Thoracic Journal Lameh Ahmadreza Seyedi Seyed Javad Farrokh Donia Lavasani Somayehsadat Alamdaran Seyed Ali 20 6 2019
20 3 175 181 2149-2530 10.5152/turkthoracj.2018.18087 10.5152/turkthoracj.2018.18087 30986176
Lung ultrasound patterns in paediatric pneumonia in Mozambique and Pakistan ERJ Open Research Ginsburg Amy Sarah Vitorino Pio Qasim Zunera Lenahan Jennifer L. Hwang Jun Lamorte Alessandro Valente Marta Balouch Benazir Muñoz Almagro Carmen Nisar M. Imran May Susanne Jehan Fyezah Bassat Quique Volpicelli Giovanni 2021
7 1 0518 2020 2312-0541 10.1183/23120541.00518-2020 10.1183/23120541.00518-2020 33569493
Diagnostic use of lung ultrasound compared to chest radiograph for suspected pneumonia in a resource-limited setting International Journal of Emergency Medicine Amatya Yogendra Rupp Jordan Russell Frances M. Saunders Jason Bales Brian House Darlene R. 12 3 2018
11 1 8 1865-1372 10.1186/s12245-018-0170-2 10.1186/s12245-018-0170-2 29527652
Evaluation of the Role of Bedside Lung Ultrasound Versus Chest X-ray in Critically Ill Patients Zagazig University Medical Journal Ali Nermeen Maguid Hassan Gamil Neven Tawfeek Mohamed Hegab Sameh 1 11 2019
25 6 887 897 2357-0717 10.21608/zumj.2019.10704.11150 10.21608/zumj.2019.10704.11150
Comparing Sensitivity of Ultrasonography and Plain Chest Radiography in Detection of Pneumonia; a Diagnostic Value Study Arch Acad Emerg Med Karimi E. 22 1 2019
7 1 e8
Lung Ultrasound Combined With Procalcitonin for a Diagnosis of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Respiratory Care Zhou Juandi Song Jia Gong Shijin Hu Weihang Wang Minjia Xiao Aibing Zhang Cong Dong Zhouzhou Daedalus Enterprises 22 1 2019
64 5 519 527 0020-1324 10.4187/respcare.06377 10.4187/respcare.06377
Lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis Respiratory Research Chavez Miguel A Shams Navid Ellington Laura E Naithani Neha Gilman Robert H Steinhoff Mark C Santosham Mathuram Black Robert E Price Carrie Gross Margaret Checkley William 23 4 2014
15 1 50 1465-993X 10.1186/1465-9921-15-50 10.1186/1465-9921-15-50 24758612
Lung ultrasound in diagnosing pneumonia in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis European Journal of Emergency Medicine Orso Daniele Guglielmo Nicola Copetti Roberto 10 2018
25 5 312 321 0969-9546 10.1097/mej.0000000000000517 10.1097/mej.0000000000000517
Lung ultrasound and chest x-ray for detecting pneumonia in an acute geriatric ward Medicine Ticinesi Andrea Lauretani Fulvio Nouvenne Antonio Mori Giulia Chiussi Giulia Maggio Marcello Meschi Tiziana Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) 7 2016
95 27 e4153 0025-7974 10.1097/md.0000000000004153 10.1097/md.0000000000004153 27399134
Detection of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Bedside Tools Egypt J Crit Care Med Gaber S. Tayeh O. Wahab K.A. Mohamed N. Essawy T. 2020
7 2-3 74 79 10.1097/EJ9.0000000000000015 10.1097/EJ9.0000000000000015.
The accuracy of lung ultrasonography versus chest radiography for diagnosis and follow-up of pneumonia in critically ill patients The Medical Journal of Cairo University Fahmy H Kinawy S 1 12 2018
86 December 3799 3805 2536-9806 10.21608/mjcu.2018.61497 10.21608/mjcu.2018.61497
Ventilator-associated pneumonia in neonates: the role of point of care lung ultrasound European Journal of Pediatrics Tusor Nora De Cunto Angela Basma Yousef Klein John L. Meau-Petit Virginie Springer Science and Business Media LLC 26 6 2020
180 1 137 146 0340-6199 10.1007/s00431-020-03710-8 10.1007/s00431-020-03710-8 32592026
Effectiveness of lung ultrasound in comparison with chest x-ray in diagnosis of lung consolidation Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences Haggag Youssef Ibrahim Mashhour Karim Ahmed Kamal Samir Nael Radwan Waheed Scientific Foundation SPIROSKI 12 8 2019
7 15 2457 2461 1857-9655 10.3889/oamjms.2019.669 10.3889/oamjms.2019.669 31666847
Emergency ultrasound of the chest Respiration Kreuter Michael Mathis Gebhard S. Karger AG 2014
87 2 89 97 0025-7931 10.1159/000357685 10.1159/000357685 24434357
Chest ultrasound in children: critical appraisal Pediatric Radiology Tomà Paolo Owens Catherine M. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 19 10 2013
43 11 1427 1434 0301-0449 10.1007/s00247-013-2756-4 10.1007/s00247-013-2756-4
International consensus statement on training standards for advanced critical care echocardiography Intensive Care Medicine Expert Round Table on Echocardiography in ICU Springer Science and Business Media LLC 11 3 2014
40 5 654 666 0342-4642 10.1007/s00134-014-3228-5 10.1007/s00134-014-3228-5
Point-of-care ultrasound education for non-physician clinicians in a resource-limited emergency department Tropical Medicine & International Health Stolz Lori A. Muruganandan Krithika M. Bisanzo Mark C. Sebikali Mugisha J. Dreifuss Bradley A. Hammerstedt Heather S. Nelson Sara W. Nayabale Irene Adhikari Srikar Shah Sachita P. 14 4 2015
20 8 1067 1072 1360-2276 10.1111/tmi.12511 10.1111/tmi.12511
Time needed to achieve completeness and accuracy in bedside lung ultrasound reporting in intensive care unit Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine Tutino Lorenzo Cianchi Giovanni Barbani Francesco Batacchi Stefano Cammelli Rita Peris Adriano Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2010
18 1 44 1757-7241 10.1186/1757-7241-18-44 10.1186/1757-7241-18-44 20701810
Use of lung ultrasonography in the detection of pneumothorax among medical students and emergency physician Critical Care Flato U A P Guimarães H P Petisco G Bezerra F Cavalcante A B Berwanguer O 4 2011
15 S2 1 31 1364-8535 10.1186/cc10194 10.1186/cc10194
Clinical review: Bedside lung ultrasound in critical care practice Critical Care Bouhemad Bélaïd Zhang Mao Lu Qin Rouby Jean-Jacques 2007
11 1 205 1364-8535 10.1186/cc5668 10.1186/cc5668 17316468
The Assessment of Competency in Thoracic Sonography (ACTS) scale: validation of a tool for point-of-care ultrasound Critical Ultrasound Journal Millington Scott J. Arntfield Robert T. Guo Robert Jie Koenig Seth Kory Pierre Noble Vicki Mallemat Haney Schoenherr Jordan R. 22 11 2017
9 1 25 2036-3176 10.1186/s13089-017-0081-0 10.1186/s13089-017-0081-0 29168030
Objective and Structured Assessment of Lung Ultrasound Competence. A Multispecialty Delphi Consensus and Construct Validity Study Annals of the American Thoracic Society Skaarup Søren Helbo Laursen Christian B. Bjerrum Anne Sofie Hilberg Ole 4 2017
14 4 555 560 2329-6933 10.1513/annalsats.201611-894oc 10.1513/annalsats.201611-894oc 28145770
International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound Intensive Care Medicine Volpicelli Giovanni Elbarbary Mahmoud Blaivas Michael Lichtenstein Daniel A. Mathis Gebhard Kirkpatrick Andrew W. Melniker Lawrence Gargani Luna Noble Vicki E. Via Gabriele Dean Anthony Tsung James W. Soldati Gino Copetti Roberto Bouhemad Belaid Reissig Angelika Agricola Eustachio Rouby Jean-Jacques Arbelot Charlotte Liteplo Andrew Sargsyan Ashot Silva Fernando Hoppmann Richard Breitkreutz Raoul Seibel Armin Neri Luca Storti Enrico Petrovic Tomislav 6 3 2012
38 4 577 591 0342-4642 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4 22392031
