Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of ARDS and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Issued Date
2024-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
13648535
eISSN
1466609X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85197729278
Journal Title
Critical Care
Volume
28
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Critical Care Vol.28 No.1 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Boumans M.M.A., Aerts W., Pisani L., Bos L.D.J., Smit M.R., Tuinman P.R. Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of ARDS and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care Vol.28 No.1 (2024). doi:10.1186/s13054-024-04985-1 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/99628
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of ARDS and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening respiratory condition with high mortality rates, accounting for 10% of all intensive care unit admissions. Lung ultrasound (LUS) as diagnostic tool for acute respiratory failure has garnered widespread recognition and was recently incorporated into the updated definitions of ARDS. This raised the hypothesis that LUS is a reliable method for diagnosing ARDS. Objectives: We aimed to establish the accuracy of LUS for ARDS diagnosis and classification of focal versus non-focal ARDS subphenotypes. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis used a systematic search strategy, which was applied to PubMed, EMBASE and cochrane databases. Studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of LUS compared to thoracic CT or chest radiography (CXR) in ARDS diagnosis or focal versus non-focal subphenotypes in adult patients were included. Quality of studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Statistical analyses were performed using “Mada” in Rstudio, version 4.0.3. Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval of each separate study were summarized in a Forest plot. Results: The search resulted in 2648 unique records. After selection, 11 reports were included, involving 2075 patients and 598 ARDS cases (29%). Nine studies reported on ARDS diagnosis and two reported on focal versus non-focal ARDS subphenotypes classification. Meta-analysis showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.631 (95% CI 0.450–0.782) and pooled specificity of 0.942 (95% CI 0.856–0.978) of LUS for ARDS diagnosis. In two studies, LUS could accurately differentiate between focal versus non-focal ARDS subphenotypes. Insufficient data was available to perform a meta-analysis. Conclusion: This review confirms the hypothesis that LUS is a reliable method for diagnosing ARDS in adult patients. For the classification of focal or non-focal subphenotypes, LUS showed promising results, but more research is needed.