Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Comparison with other studies of predictive value of TI and LUS for successful weaning

From: Lung and diaphragm ultrasound as predictors of success in weaning from mechanical ventilation

Study (ref)—variable n AUC Sensitivity Specificity LR+ LR− Cut-off point (%)
Binet [9]—LUS 48 0.89 1 0.44 1.80 0 14
Osman [11]—LUS 68 0.94 1 0.94 18 0 12
Shoaeir [10]—LUS 50 0.95 0.83 1   0.17 10
Soummer [8]—LUS 86 0.87 0.68 0.86 4.96 0.37 13
Tenza—LUSm 69 0.80 0.76 0.73 2.8 0.44 7
Ali [16]—TI 54 0.96 0.85 6.27 0.04 30a
Baess [18]—TI 30 0.65 0.70 0.71 2.43 0.42 30a
Blumhof(14)—TI 33 0.86 0.85 0.77 3.67 0.20 20a
DiNino [12]—TI 63 0.79 0.88 0.71 3.07 0.17 30a
Farghaly [16]—TI 54 0.71 0.9 0.64 2.52 0.16 34.5a
Fayed [15]—TI 112 0.93 0.98 0.73 3.66 0.04 29a; 24b
Ferrari [13]—TI 46 0.95 0.83 0.88 7.03 0.20 36a
Jung [17]—TI 33 0.61 0.93 9.17 0.42 20a
Osman [11]—TI 68 0.89 0.88 1 0.12 28a
Tenza—TI 69 0.71 0.93 0.48 1.8 0.14 24a
  1. AUC, area under the ROC curve; LR+, positive likelihood ratio; LR−, negative likelihood ratio; LUS, lung ultrasound score; LUSm, modified lung ultrasound score; TI, diaphragm thickness index
  2. aRight hemidiaphragm; b Left hemidiaphragm