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

The Ultrasound Journal

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

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	30^a
Baess [18]—TI	30	0.65	0.70	0.71	2.43	0.42	30^a
Blumhof(14)—TI	33	0.86	0.85	0.77	3.67	0.20	20^a
DiNino [12]—TI	63	0.79	0.88	0.71	3.07	0.17	30^a
Farghaly [16]—TI	54	0.71	0.9	0.64	2.52	0.16	34.5^a
Fayed [15]—TI	112	0.93	0.98	0.73	3.66	0.04	29^a; 24^b
Ferrari [13]—TI	46	0.95	0.83	0.88	7.03	0.20	36^a
Jung [17]—TI	33	–	0.61	0.93	9.17	0.42	20^a
Osman [11]—TI	68	0.89	0.88	1	–	0.12	28^a
Tenza—TI	69	0.71	0.93	0.48	1.8	0.14	24^a

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
^aRight hemidiaphragm; ^b Left hemidiaphragm