Is extravascular lung water index useful for the diagnostic accuracy of lung injury in patients with shock? We need more evidence

interest the article by Chew and colleagues [1], who studied the role of extravascular lung water (EVLW) indices in improving the diagnostic accuracy of lung injury (LI) in patients with shock. It is not clear how the patients included in this study are diff erent from those included in previous ones [2,3]. Indeed, in this work, 34 (67%) of patients had septic shock and up to 33 (65%) of patients presented with LI. Th erefore, it is not proven that the results of this study could be extended to patients without septic shock and acute LI (ALI). Th e authors provided only the values of likelihood ratios (LHRs) and post-test odds without their 95% confi dence intervals (CIs). However, the reporting of CIs enables readers to eff ectively understand the values presented, taking into account the uncertainty inherent in any sample size. Likelihood and diagnostic ratios are ratios of probabilities but should also be reported with their CIs [4]. Th us, I calculated the 95% CIs of LHRs and post-test odds for each EVLW index (Tables 1 and 2). For LHRs, CIs that include 1 indicate that the study has not shown convincing evidence of any diagnostic value of the