Table 1.

Reporting checklist for lung ultrasound studies in heart failure cohorts

	No.	Aspects for consideration	Literature
Title or abstract	1	Identification as a study employing lung ultrasound as a measure of pulmonary congestion
Abstract	2	Structured summary of study design, methods, results, and conclusions
Introduction	3	Scientific and clinical background, including the intended use and clinical role of lung ultrasound
	4	Study hypothesis and objectives
Methods
Study design	5	Whether data collection was planned before the lung ultrasound was performed (prospective study) or after (retrospective study)
	6	Description of how heart failure was defined	16,17
	7	Description of reference standard for the primary outcome and how it was adjudicated (if applicable)	15
Participants	8	Inclusion and exclusion criteria with particular attention to factors that could confound lung ultrasound findings (e.g. interstitial lung disease, pneumonitis, ARDS, dialysis)	18–22
	9	On what basis potentially eligible participants were identified (such as symptoms, results from previous tests, inclusion in registry)
	10	Where and when potentially eligible participants were identified (setting, location and dates)	5,11,23
Study size	11	Explain how the study size was arrived at
Lung ultrasound method	12	Type of ultrasound equipment used (such as high-end ultrasound system or pocket size ultrasound device), including type and orientation (transverse vs. sagittal) of transducer	24,25
	13	Patient positioning during lung ultrasound examination	26
	14	Number and location of lung ultrasound zones examined	5,6,8,11,28
	15	Duration of recorded lung ultrasound clips (if image analysis was performed offline)	24,25
	16	Whether clinical information was available to the performers of the lung ultrasound
Lung ultrasound image analysis	17	Whether clinical information was available to the readers of the lung ultrasound (image analysis blindly performed offline vs. real time)
	18	For serial lung ultrasound assessment: Whether the timing of the lung ultrasound was available to the readers (temporal blinding)	11
	19	Method of B-line quantification (e.g. sum of all B-lines across all lung zones, or score based on B-line number in a given zone), including inter- and intra-observer variability. If automated software was used, type and version of software.	4,11
	20	Describe how pleural effusions were assessed by ultrasound and report the number of patients with unilateral or bilateral pleural effusions on ultrasound.
Additional investigations	21	Describe any additional investigations supporting the diagnosis or degree of congestion (e.g. echocardiography, natriuretic peptides, invasive hemodynamics) performed and their temporal relationship to the LUS examination, as well as to therapy targeted at congestion.
Data analysis	22	Number of patients with missing LUS zones & how these patients were handled in the analysis. How lung ultrasound zones with pleural effusions that interfered with B-line quantification were handled in the analysis.
Results	23	Report the number of patients enrolled, excluded, patients with adequate images and those analyzed, as well as outcomes. Give reasons for non-participation at each stage. Consider using a flow diagram.
	24	Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of participants
	25	Number and variation of B-lines at baseline (and follow up, if applicable)
Discussion	26	Study limitations, including sources of potential bias, statistical uncertainty, and generalizability
	27	Implications for clinical practice, including the intended use and clinical role of lung ultrasound
Other information	28	Name of registry and registration number if applicable.
	29	Sources of funding and other support; role of funders

Lung ultrasound-specific aspects are highlighted in light blue.