ABSTRACT
Lung ultrasound (LUS) has an established evidence base and has proven useful in previous viral epidemics. An understanding of the utility of LUS in COVID-19 is crucial to determine its most suitable role based on local circumstances. A scoping review was thus undertaken to explore the utility of LUS in COVID-19 and guide future research.
33 studies were identified which represent a rapidly expanding evidence base for LUS in COVID-19 however the quality of the included studies was relatively low. LUS certainly appears to be a highly sensitive and fairly specific test for COVID-19 in all ages and in pregnancy, however its accuracy may be influenced by various factors including disease severity, pre-existing lung disease, scanning protocol, operator experience, disease prevalence and the reference standard.
High quality research is needed in various fields including: diagnostic accuracy in undifferentiated patients; triage and prognostication; monitoring progression and guiding interventions; persistence of residual LUS findings; inter-observer agreement; and the role of contrast-enhanced LUS.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
NO FUNDING RECEIVED BY ANY AUTHOR
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
REVIEW ARTICLE SO NOT APPLICABLE
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Critical review of manuscript (NM, CM, BJ)
All authors read and approved the final manuscript. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. Each author certifies that he has no commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest. We certify that this research was conducted in conformity with ethical principles of our institutions. The text and tables have not been previously published and reproduced from another source.
Data Availability
REVIEW ARTICLE SO NOT APPLICABLE
