We have located links that may give you full text access.
Screening value of lung ultrasound and pleural shear wave elastography in connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease: a preliminary study.
Clinical Rheumatology 2024 May 4
OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnostic value of lung ultrasound (LUS) and pleural shear wave elastography (SWE) for connective tissue disease-interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD).
METHODS: We selected 104 patients diagnosed with connective tissue disease (CTD) at our hospital. All patients underwent LUS, SWE, and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). With HRCT as the imaging gold standard for diagnosis, patients were categorized into CTD-ILD and CTD-non-ILD groups. We employed paired chi-square tests to compare the diagnostic differences between HRCT and LUS for ILD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the diagnostic value of pleural SWE for ILD. Correlation analysis was performed between pleural elasticity values and lung ultrasound scores.
RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of LUS for diagnosing CTD-ILD were 93.3%, 86.2%, 6.761, and 0.078, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the results between HRCT and LUS (P = 1.000), with a kappa value of 0.720 (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the pleural elasticity in the bilateral lower back region between the case and control groups (P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for pleural SWE in diagnosing CTD-ILD was 0.685. In CTD-ILD patients, there was no significant correlation between pleural elasticity values and LUS scores (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The LUS can serve as an important imaging method for screening for CTD-ILD and assessing the severity of the disease. However, pleural SWE has been shown to demonstrate lower diagnostic efficacy for CTD-ILD, and its ability to assess disease severity is limited.
METHODS: We selected 104 patients diagnosed with connective tissue disease (CTD) at our hospital. All patients underwent LUS, SWE, and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). With HRCT as the imaging gold standard for diagnosis, patients were categorized into CTD-ILD and CTD-non-ILD groups. We employed paired chi-square tests to compare the diagnostic differences between HRCT and LUS for ILD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the diagnostic value of pleural SWE for ILD. Correlation analysis was performed between pleural elasticity values and lung ultrasound scores.
RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of LUS for diagnosing CTD-ILD were 93.3%, 86.2%, 6.761, and 0.078, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the results between HRCT and LUS (P = 1.000), with a kappa value of 0.720 (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the pleural elasticity in the bilateral lower back region between the case and control groups (P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for pleural SWE in diagnosing CTD-ILD was 0.685. In CTD-ILD patients, there was no significant correlation between pleural elasticity values and LUS scores (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The LUS can serve as an important imaging method for screening for CTD-ILD and assessing the severity of the disease. However, pleural SWE has been shown to demonstrate lower diagnostic efficacy for CTD-ILD, and its ability to assess disease severity is limited.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app