ArticleItalian journal of pediatrics2026
Clinical utility of lung ultrasound in differentiating and monitoring complicated pediatric pneumonia: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Italian journal of pediatrics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) is an established diagnostic tool for pediatric pneumonia, yet its utility as radiation-free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for monitoring disease progression and differentiating complicated phenotypes, specifically necrotizing pneumonia (NP) and parapneumonic effusion (PPE), has not been prospectively validated in a single comparative cohort. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and longitudinal performance of LUS, including a quantitative LUS score, in children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), CT-confirmed NP, and PPE, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of LUS for identifying and monitoring complicated pediatric pneumonia, including its potential as a radiation-free follow-up tool.
methodsThis prospective single-center diagnostic accuracy study enrolled 257 children diagnosed with CAP (n = 116), NP (n = 54), and PPE (n = 87). NP was confirmed by CT in all 54 cases; LUS was performed by trained operators at admission and on day five as a paired assessment against CT and chest radiograph findings. LUS qualitative features and quantitative scores were compared between groups and over time. Multivariable regression and ROC analysis were performed to assess diagnostic accuracy and identify predictors of clinical outcome.
resultsAt admission, NP and PPE showed significantly higher LUS scores and more frequent absent lung sliding and heterogeneous hypoechoic consolidation than CAP (p < 0.001). A LUS score cutoff of > 8 demonstrated strong diagnostic performance at both time points (admission AUC: 0.881, sensitivity 79.02%; Day 5 AUC: 0.861, specificity 93.86%), supporting its potential role as an early screening marker and as a radiation-free bedside monitoring tool during follow-up. Longitudinal LUS assessment demonstrated significant re-aeration by Day 5 (p < 0.001), evidenced by an increased proportion of separated B-lines (35.0% to 54.9%) and a reduction in lung consolidation. On multivariable analysis, higher LUS scores independently predicted longer hospitalization on both admission (β = 0.221, p < 0.001) and Day 5 (β = 0.215, p < 0.001), and elevated D-dimer on admission (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) and Day 5 (β = 0.386, p < 0.001).
conclusionA LUS score > 8 showed promising diagnostic performance for identifying complicated pediatric pneumonia at admission and during Day 5 follow-up. Although internal bootstrap validation supported the stability of its performance, prospective validation in independent cohorts is required before implementation as a CT-sparing follow-up strategy.
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.