Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of ARDS and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorBoumans M.M.A.
dc.contributor.authorAerts W.
dc.contributor.authorPisani L.
dc.contributor.authorBos L.D.J.
dc.contributor.authorSmit M.R.
dc.contributor.authorTuinman P.R.
dc.contributor.correspondenceBoumans M.M.A.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-13T18:09:32Z
dc.date.available2024-07-13T18:09:32Z
dc.date.issued2024-12-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.
dc.identifier.citationCritical Care Vol.28 No.1 (2024)
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13054-024-04985-1
dc.identifier.eissn1466609X
dc.identifier.issn13648535
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85197729278
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/99628
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.titleDiagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of ARDS and identification of focal or non-focal ARDS subphenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.typeReview
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85197729278&origin=inward
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.titleCritical Care
oaire.citation.volume28
oairecerif.author.affiliationNoordWest Ziekenhuisgroep
oairecerif.author.affiliationMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversità degli studi di Bari Aldo Moro
oairecerif.author.affiliationVrije Universiteit Amsterdam
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversiteit van Amsterdam
oairecerif.author.affiliationAmsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdam
oairecerif.author.affiliationAmsterdam Leiden Intensive Care Focused Echography (ALIFE)

Files

Collections