Assessing Extravascular Lung Water in Critically Ill Patients Using Lung Ultrasound: A Systematic Review on Methodological Aspects in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Standard

Assessing Extravascular Lung Water in Critically Ill Patients Using Lung Ultrasound: A Systematic Review on Methodological Aspects in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. / Neuteboom, Owen B.; Heldeweg, Micah L.; Pisani, Luigi et al.

In: Ultrasound in medicine & biology, Vol. 46, No. 7, 07.2020, p. 1557-1564.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review

BibTeX

@article{ba54c9d56efc4c508092fb7c8334e5bb,

title = "Assessing Extravascular Lung Water in Critically Ill Patients Using Lung Ultrasound: A Systematic Review on Methodological Aspects in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies",

abstract = "Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a non-invasive bedside method used to quantify extravascular lung water (EVLW). To evaluate the methodology and diagnostic accuracy of LUS in studies assessing EVLW in intensive care unit patients, PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing LUS with imaging modalities. In 14 relevant studies a wide variety of equipment used and training of examiners were noted. Four scoring systems were reported: (i) a binary score (the presence of three or more B-lines); (ii) a categorical score; (iii) a numerical score; (iv) a quantitative LUS score using software. The diagnostic accuracy of LUS varied: sensitivity ranged from 50%–98%, specificity from 76%–100% and r² from 0.20–0.91. Methodology and diagnostic accuracy varies substantially in published reports. Further research is needed to correlate methodological factors with diagnostic accuracy. Hospitals should standardize LUS methodology. Consensus is needed to harmonize LUS methodology for lung water assessment.",

keywords = "Extravascular lung water, Fluid status, Intensive care, Interstitial syndrome, Methodology, Transpulmonary thermodilution, Ultrasound",

author = "Neuteboom, {Owen B.} and Heldeweg, {Micah L.} and Luigi Pisani and Smit, {Marry R.} and Lagrand, {Wim K.} and Cherpanath, {Thomas G.} and Dondorp, {Arjen M.} and Schultz, {Marcus J.} and Tuinman, {Pieter R.}",

year = "2020",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.02.014",

language = "English",

volume = "46",

pages = "1557--1564",

journal = "Ultrasound in medicine & biology",

issn = "0301-5629",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Extravascular Lung Water in Critically Ill Patients Using Lung Ultrasound: A Systematic Review on Methodological Aspects in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

AU - Neuteboom, Owen B.

AU - Heldeweg, Micah L.

AU - Pisani, Luigi

AU - Smit, Marry R.

AU - Lagrand, Wim K.

AU - Cherpanath, Thomas G.

AU - Dondorp, Arjen M.

AU - Schultz, Marcus J.

AU - Tuinman, Pieter R.

PY - 2020/7

Y1 - 2020/7

N2 - Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a non-invasive bedside method used to quantify extravascular lung water (EVLW). To evaluate the methodology and diagnostic accuracy of LUS in studies assessing EVLW in intensive care unit patients, PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing LUS with imaging modalities. In 14 relevant studies a wide variety of equipment used and training of examiners were noted. Four scoring systems were reported: (i) a binary score (the presence of three or more B-lines); (ii) a categorical score; (iii) a numerical score; (iv) a quantitative LUS score using software. The diagnostic accuracy of LUS varied: sensitivity ranged from 50%–98%, specificity from 76%–100% and r² from 0.20–0.91. Methodology and diagnostic accuracy varies substantially in published reports. Further research is needed to correlate methodological factors with diagnostic accuracy. Hospitals should standardize LUS methodology. Consensus is needed to harmonize LUS methodology for lung water assessment.

AB - Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a non-invasive bedside method used to quantify extravascular lung water (EVLW). To evaluate the methodology and diagnostic accuracy of LUS in studies assessing EVLW in intensive care unit patients, PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing LUS with imaging modalities. In 14 relevant studies a wide variety of equipment used and training of examiners were noted. Four scoring systems were reported: (i) a binary score (the presence of three or more B-lines); (ii) a categorical score; (iii) a numerical score; (iv) a quantitative LUS score using software. The diagnostic accuracy of LUS varied: sensitivity ranged from 50%–98%, specificity from 76%–100% and r² from 0.20–0.91. Methodology and diagnostic accuracy varies substantially in published reports. Further research is needed to correlate methodological factors with diagnostic accuracy. Hospitals should standardize LUS methodology. Consensus is needed to harmonize LUS methodology for lung water assessment.

KW - Extravascular lung water

KW - Fluid status

KW - Intensive care

KW - Interstitial syndrome

KW - Methodology

KW - Transpulmonary thermodilution

KW - Ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082670594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.02.014

DO - 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.02.014

M3 - Review article

C2 - 32253067

VL - 46

SP - 1557

EP - 1564

JO - Ultrasound in medicine & biology

JF - Ultrasound in medicine & biology

SN - 0301-5629

IS - 7

ER -

ID: 11343605

Generic Portal