Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Lung ultrasound score reliability in dogs and cats
By Oricco, Stefano et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2024·Centro Veterinario Imperiese, Italy·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Lung ultrasound score in dogs and cats: A reliability study.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how reliable lung ultrasound (LUS) is for checking pets in respiratory distress, like when they're having trouble breathing. Researchers reviewed 40 LUS exams from dogs and cats and found that different people, regardless of their experience level, generally agreed on the results. The study showed that experienced raters were very consistent in their assessments, and even those with less experience had good agreement on identifying certain lung patterns. Overall, the findings suggest that using the lung ultrasound score (LUSS) is a dependable method for veterinarians, especially in emergency and critical care situations.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a noninvasive tool for examining respiratory distress patients. The lung ultrasound score (LUSS) can be used to quantify and monitor lung aeration loss with good reliability. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Assess the reliability of a new LUSS among raters with different levels of experience and determine how well the same raters agree on identifying patterns of LUS abnormalities. ANIMALS: Forty LUS examinations of dogs and cats and 320 videos were reviewed from a digital database. METHODS: Retrospective reliability study with post hoc analysis. Protocolized LUS were randomly selected; intrarater and interrater reliability of the LUSS and pattern recognition agreement among 4 raters with different levels of experience in LUS were tested. RESULTS: The intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) single measurement, absolute agreement, and 2-way mixed effects model was 0.967 for the high-experience rater (H-Exp), 0.963 and 0.952 for the medium-experience raters (M-Exp-1; M-Exp-2), and 0.950 for the low-experience rater (L-Exp). The interrater ICC average measurement, absolute agreement, and 2-way random effects model among the observers was 0.980. The Fleiss' kappa (k) values showed almost perfect agreement (k = 1) among raters in identifying pleural effusion and translobar tissue-like pattern, strong agreement for A-lines (k = 0.881) and B-lines (k = 0.806), moderate agreement (k = 0.693) for subpleural loss of aeration, and weak agreement (k = 0.474) for irregularities of the pleural line. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Our results indicate excellent intra- and interrater reliability for LUS scoring and pattern identification, providing a foundation for the use of the LUSS in emergency medicine and intensive care.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38009739/