ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Lung Ultrasound Artifacts Interpreted as Pathology Footprints.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sonographic Assessment of Hyperechoic Vertical Artifact Characteristics in Lung Ultrasound Using Microconvex, Phased Array, and Linear Transducers.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- An international standardization to study the clinical use of lung ultrasound to discriminate viral, bacterial and atypical pneumonia in children with community acquired pneumonia.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Lung ultrasound in a nutshell. Lines, signs, some applications, and misconceptions from a radiologist's point of view. Part 2.Polish journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Where Are We? The Past, Present and Future of Thoracic Ultrasound.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Lung Ultrasound: A Leading Diagnostic Tool.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe original observation that lung ultrasound provides information regarding the physical state of the organ, rather than the anatomical details related to the disease, has reinforced the idea that the observed acoustic signs represent artifacts. However, the definition of artifact does not appear adequate since pulmonary ultrasound signs have shown valuable diagnostic accuracy, which has been usefully exploited by physicians in numerous pathologies.
methodA specific method has been used over the years to analyze lung ultrasound data and to convert artefactual information into anatomical information.
resultsA physical explanation of the genesis of the acoustic signs is provided, and the relationship between their visual characteristics and the surface histopathology of the lung is illustrated. Two important sources of potential signal alteration are also highlighted.
conclusionsThe acoustic signs are generated by acoustic traps that progressively release previously trapped energy. Consequently, the acoustic signs highlight the presence of acoustic traps and quantitatively describe their distribution on the lung surface; they are not artifacts, but pathology footprints and anatomical information. Moreover, the impact of the dynamic focusing algorithms and the impact of different probes on the visual aspect of the acoustic signs should not be neglected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.