ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Diagnostic imaging modalities in Dyspnoea and suspected acute heart failure: a systematic review with Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early identification of pulmonary congestion in patients with dyspnoea is critical for managing acute heart failure. However, the optimal imaging modality remains uncertain. We compared chest radiography, lung ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) for detecting acute heart failure. Methods: We conducted a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies in adults with dyspnoea. Medline, Embase, LILACS, and Web of Science were searched on April 9, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using bivariate random-effects models. Comparative performance was assessed by Bayesian network meta-analysis with weakly informative priors. Results: We included 95 studies (15,132 patients). Lung ultrasound was evaluated in 78 studies (11,790 patients), chest radiography in 30 (5966), CT in two (368), and ReDS in six (525). Some studies evaluated multiple modalities. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95%CI: 0.82-0.90) and 0.89 (0.85-0.91) for lung ultrasound, 0.65 (0.58-0.72) and 0.91 (0.87-0.94) for chest radiography, 0.73 (0.53-0.87) and 0.73 (0.58-0.84) for ReDS. CT was not included in bivariate modelling because data were sparse; Bayesian network estimates were sensitivity 0.76 (95%CrI 0.62-0.86) and specificity 0.94 (0.88-0.97). CT and lung ultrasound each had >95% posterior probability of higher sensitivity than chest radiography and higher specificity than both chest radiography and ReDS. Conclusion: Lung ultrasound may serve as a first-line bedside modality. A normal chest radiograph cannot reliably exclude acute heart failure. CT showed high specificity based on limited evidence. The role of ReDS remains uncertain.
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.