In our study, 12 patients (42.9%) showed typical changes for COVID-19, 15 patients (53.6%) had indeterminate chest CT findings, and 1 patient (3.6%) had atypical chest CT findings. Lopes et al. in Brazil observed similar findings among 45 adult COVID-19 patients, where 29 (64.4%) CT images were classified as typical, 8 (17.8%) as indeterminate, and another 8 (17.8%) as negative. We found a significant correlation between LUS scores and CT severity scores in pediatric COVID-19 patients (correlation coefficient = 0.467, P = 0.011). This association aligns with the findings of Lopes et al., who also observed a correlation between LUS scores and lung lesion extent on CT (P < .0001) (
18).
Similarly, studies by Nouvenne et al. and Tung-Chen et al., conducted in Italy and Spain respectively, also reported a significant correlation between LUS and CT scores (P < 0.001) (
19,
20). In China, Deng et al. demonstrated a strong correlation between LUS scores and CT scores in critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia patients (r = 0.891, P < 0.01) (
21). Similar results have been documented in studies of pregnant populations, with a high correlation between LUS and CT scores (r = 0.793, P < 0.01) as reported by Deng et al. (
22), and a significant positive correlation (rICC = 0.946; P < 0.001) found by Biancolin et al. (
23).
In terms of lesion distribution, we observed comparable lung involvement on both LUS and chest CT. The study by Giorno et al. in Brazil also reported a similar topographical distribution of lesions on LUS and chest CT in pediatric COVID-19 patients (
11). Our results further showed no significant correlation between LUS scores and CXR findings (P = 0.392), consistent with the findings of Volpicelli et al. in Italy (
24). In their descriptive study, LUS and CXR results disagreed in 60 (43.2%) adult patients suspected of COVID-19, underscoring the limitations of CXR in identifying COVID-19 lesions compared to LUS.
In our study, sixteen out of the nineteen patients with normal CXR findings had a LUS score of ≤ 4, while the remaining three with normal CXRs had LUS scores of 8, 14, and 14 (these patients had ALL and neurological diseases). This suggests that LUS was more sensitive than CXR. A similar observation was made in a pediatric COVID-19 study by Giorno et al. in Brazil, where eight patients with LUS abnormalities had normal CXRs (
11). In line with our findings, Ture et al. in Turkey also found that LUS was more sensitive than CXR in early-stage and mild COVID-19 pneumonia in pediatric patients suspected of COVID‐19; in their study, four patients had normal CXRs but displayed LUS findings (
25). Consistently, Mateos Gonzalez et al. reported that 20 adult COVID-19 patients with normal CXRs (55%) had pulmonary infiltrates detected by LUS. Their study in Spain found that LUS was more sensitive than CXR (81% vs. 63%) in detecting COVID-19 pneumonia (
26). Similarly, in a study by Gibbons et al., LUS showed higher sensitivity than CXR in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia in adults (97.6% vs. 69.9%) (
27).
5.1. Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small. Second, LUS, chest CT, and CXR were not performed simultaneously, with ultrasound conducted an average of three days after admission, which affects the assessment of correlations among the different imaging modalities. In our study, 83% of patients had a positive PCR test. While a positive PCR test is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19, during the early pandemic, patients with abnormal chest CT findings, a contact history, and clinical symptoms were also treated as COVID-19 cases.
5.2. Conclusions
Lung ultrasound demonstrated greater sensitivity than CXR and outperformed it in detecting COVID-19 pneumonia. Lung ultrasound showed a significant correlation with CT findings, making it a promising, safer alternative for diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia in children, although it may not fully replace chest CT in all cases.