Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Heart Failure; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorRahmani, Erfan
dc.contributor.authorFarrokhi, Masoud
dc.contributor.authorFarrokhi, Mehrdad
dc.contributor.authorNouri, Shadi
dc.contributor.authorFard, Atousa Moghadam
dc.contributor.authorHoorshad, Behnam
dc.contributor.authorAbderam, Amir
dc.date.accessioned2026-02-06T18:26:55Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentDoğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Despite the evident impact of ultrasonography on diagnosis in acute care settings, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding its accuracy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for the identification of acute heart failure in patients with suggestive manifestations. Methods: Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from their inception to November 2024 to identify original studies investigating accuracy of LUS for diagnosis of heart failure. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The statistical analysis for pooling the results of diagnostic performance parameters was conducted using Stata and Meta-DiSc softwares. Results: Thirty-eight included studies in this meta-analysis were published between 2006 and 2024, encompassing a total of 6,783 patients. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies with respect to sensitivity (I2=92.51 and P<0.01) and specificity (I2=93.79 and P<0.01). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LUS for detection of heart failure were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.860.93), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), respectively. In addition, pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 7.87 (95% CI, 5.60-11.07), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.10-0.19), and 70.74 (95% CI, 41.98-119.21), respectively. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that LUS is a highly practical imaging for diagnosing acute heart failure, with excellent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. It is particularly valuable for excluding the heart failure when the result is negative. However, the influence of outlier and influential studies warrants caution, and future studies should aim to further validate these findings in diverse clinical contexts.
dc.identifier.doi10.22037/aaem.v13i1.2555
dc.identifier.issn2645-4904
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.orcid0009-0007-4409-5936
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105006762815
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v13i1.2555
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11129/10688
dc.identifier.volume13
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001416291000001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherShahid Beheshti Univ Medical Sciences
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Academic Emergency Medicine
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260204
dc.subjectDyspnea
dc.subjectHeart Failure
dc.subjectLung
dc.subjectMeta-analysis
dc.subjectUltrasonography
dc.titleAccuracy of Lung Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Heart Failure; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
dc.typeReview Article

Files