Respiratory failure & ventilation
Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
This review confirms the hypothesis that LUS is a reliable method for diagnosing ARDS in adult patients.
Study context
- Population
- Adults assessed for ARDS diagnosis or focal vs non-focal ARDS subphenotypes11 reports
- Participants
- 2,075 adults
- Comparison
- Lung ultrasound (LUS) vs thoracic CT or chest radiography as reference
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of LUS for ARDS diagnosis
Methodological detailsQUADAS-2 quality assessment
- QUADAS-2 quality assessment
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
ARDS diagnosis (9 studies)
| Group | Pooled sensitivity | Pooled specificity |
|---|---|---|
| LUS | 0.631 (95% CI 0.450-0.782) | 0.942 (95% CI 0.856-0.978) |
LUS
Pooled sensitivity0.631 (95% CI 0.450-0.782)
Pooled specificity0.942 (95% CI 0.856-0.978)
Further pooled results
Focal vs non-focal ARDS subphenotype classification (2 studies)
- LUS could accurately differentiate focal vs non-focal ARDS subphenotypes; insufficient data for meta-analysis
Original publication
Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of ARDS and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. Published 8 July 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →