ABSTRACT Objective We aimed to share our experience in implementing a structured system for COVID-19 lung findings, elucidating key aspects of the lung ultrasound score to facilitate its standardized clinical use beyond the pandemic scenario. Methods Using a scoring system to classify the extent of lung involvement, we retrospectively analyzed the ultrasound reports performed in our institution according to COVID-RADS standardization. Results The study included 69 thoracic ultrasound exams, with 27 following the protocol. The majority of patients were female (52%), with ages ranging from 1 to 96 years and an average of 56 years. Classification according to COVID-RADS was as follows: 11.1% in category 0, 37% in category 1, 44.4% in category 2, and 7.4% in category 3. Ground-glass opacities on tomography correlated with higher COVID-RADS scores (categories 2 and 3) in 82% of cases. Ventilatory assessment revealed that 50% of cases in higher COVID-RADS categories (2 and 3) required second-line oxygen supplementation, while none of the cases in lower categories (0 and 1) utilized this support. Conclusion Lung ultrasound has been widely utilized as a diagnostic tool owing to its availability and simplicity of application. In the context of the pandemic emergency, a pressing need for a focused and easily applicable assessment arose. The structured reporting system, incorporating ultrasound findings for stratification, demonstrated ease of replicability. This system stands as a crucial tool for screening, predicting severity, and aiding in medical decisions, even in a non-pandemic context. COVID19 COVID 19 COVID-1 scenario involvement COVIDRADS RADS standardization 6 exams protocol 52%, 52 52% , (52%) 9 5 follows 111 11 11.1 0 37 444 44 4 44.4 74 7 7.4 3 Groundglass Ground glass 82 50 ( secondline second line supplementation support application emergency arose stratification replicability screening severity decisions nonpandemic non COVID1 COVID- (52% 11. 44. 7. 8 (52 (5

ABSTRACT Objective: Abdominal ultrasonography is widely used to evaluate suspected cases of appendicitis. Objective descriptions of the direct and indirect signs of appendicitis result in varied assessments of its likelihood. This study introduces the Appendix Imaging Reporting and Data System (APENDIC-RADS) to standardize the reporting of appendix ultrasound findings. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients of all ages who underwent abdominal ultrasonography for the investigation of acute appendicitis. The primary outcome was histopathological confirmation of acute appendicitis post-surgery. The imaging findings were classified into five categories: APENDIC-RADS 0, where the appendix cannot be visualized; APENDIC-RADS 1, indicating a normal appendix; APENDIC-RADS 2, describing an appendix that is likely normal but only partially visualized; APENDIC-RADS 3, appendicitis cannot be ruled out due to uncertain features and APENDIC-RADS 4, acute appendicitis. Results: A total of 747 patients were assessed for suspected acute appendicitis using ultrasonography. Of the diagnosed patients, 52% were male, primarily exhibiting symptoms such as nausea and/or vomiting (60%), right iliac fossa pain (54%), and sudden decompression in the right iliac fossa (24%). Stratification into APENDIC-RADS categories revealed a significant variation in the incidence of acute appendicitis, with incidence rates of 4.5% for category 0 and 0.7%, 2.2%, 11.5%, and 93.5% for categories 1 to 4, respectively (p<0.001). The APENDIC-RADS showed excellent discriminative ability, evidenced by an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.950 (95%CI=0.899-1). Conclusion: APENDIC-RADS categorization demonstrated excellent performance in standardizing the ultrasound-determined probability of acute appendicitis. Its implementation could improve physician communication and standardization of patient management. likelihood APENDICRADS APENDIC RADS (APENDIC-RADS Methods singlecenter single center postsurgery. postsurgery post surgery. surgery post-surgery visualized 2 3 4 Results 74 52 male andor or 60%, 60 60% , (60%) 54%, 54 54% (54%) 24%. 24 24% . (24%) 45 5 4.5 07 7 0.7% 22 2.2% 115 11 11.5% 935 93 93.5 p<0.001. p0001 p p<0.001 001 (p<0.001) ability 0950 950 0.95 95%CI=0.8991. 95CI08991 CI 95%CI=0.899 95 899 (95%CI=0.899-1) Conclusion ultrasounddetermined determined management 6 (60% (54% (24% 4. 0.7 2.2 11.5 9 93. p000 p<0.00 00 (p<0.001 095 0.9 8991 95%CI=0.8991 95CI0899 95%CI=0.89 89 (95%CI=0.899-1 (60 (54 (24 0. 2. 11. p00 p<0.0 (p<0.00 09 95CI089 95%CI=0.8 8 (95%CI=0.899- (6 (5 (2 p0 p<0. (p<0.0 95CI08 95%CI=0. (95%CI=0.899 ( p<0 (p<0. 95CI0 95%CI=0 (95%CI=0.89 p< (p<0 95CI 95%CI= (95%CI=0.8 (p< 95%CI (95%CI=0. (p (95%CI=0 (95%CI= (95%CI

ABSTRACT Objective To stratify ultrasound samples in a pediatric population undergoing evaluation for acute appendicitis to examine the variability in cecal appendix diameter, in different age groups, and to determine whether there is a prevalent value for each age group. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study with 196 children aged 0 to 15 years. Data were extracted from reports of ultrasound examinations carried out between 2008 and 2015. Children with sonographic diagnosis of appendicitis or other signs of periappendiceal inflammation were excluded. Results The evaluation of the anteroposterior measurement of the cecal appendix revealed a mean diameter of 4.14mm (standard deviation: 0.93mm; 95%CI: 3.86-4.14). Cecal appendix diameter did not differ significant between age groups. Conclusion Evaluation of the anteroposterior diameter of the cecal appendix in centimeters in a sample of 196 children aged 0 to15 years revealed a mean diameter of 4.14mm (standard deviation, 0.93mm. There were no significant differences in cecal appendix diameter following stratification by age. Results indicate a single value can be adopted for mean cecal appendix diameter in pediatric populations.