Skip to main content

Table 3 Lung ultrasound methodology of included studies

From: The impact of lung ultrasound on clinical-decision making across departments: a systematic review

Study Zones Orientation B-line appraisal Probe Examiner Interrater agreement
ED
 House 2020 10 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines Convex Clinician + trained Experts: 0.9
Clinician: 0.8
 Shah 2016 18 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines Phased Clinician + trained LVEF κ:0.98
 Russell 2015 8 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 4 B-lines Convex Investigator + trained Investigators κ: 0.82
 Goffi 2013 8 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines Convex Investigator N/A
 Yuan 2001 N/A N/A N/A Linear + convex + phased Technician
 + trained
N/A
ICU
 Barman 2020 8 Parallel  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines Linear + convex Investigator N/A
 Haji
2018
12 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines N/A Investigator + experience κ:0.69
 Wallbridge 2017 N/A Parallel  ≥ 2 zones with B-lines: diffuse Convex + linear Investigator + certified N/A
 Xirouchaki 2013 12 Perpendicular  > 1 B-line in zone Convex Investigator + experience N/A
 Kröner 2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A Technician N/A
GW
 Mozzini 2016 28/8/2 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines Linear + convex + phased Clinicians + trained Various
 Sferrazza papa 2016 8 Perpendicular  ≥ 2 positive regions with ≥ 3 B-lines Convex + linear Clinicians + trained N/A
 Yu 1992 N/A N/A N/A Convex + linear + phased Technician N/A
  1. κ kappa degree of agreement; N/A not available. The probes were grouped in major probe categories (e.g. phased, convex, linear) although their specific frequency range varied. The examiner was described as investigator, technician, or clinician. Training of examiners were grouped into experienced, trained and certified although the respective definition of the former varied substantially