We read the letter to the editor “B-lines score: artifacts as a sign of neonatal specific disease?” by Quarato et al. and we are pleased by the interest aroused by our article “Neonatal lung ultrasonography score after surfactant in preterm infants: A prospective observational study” published on your journal. This study included preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), requiring non-invasive ventilation and surfactant. The aim of our citated study was to asses changes of a validated neonatal lung ultrasonography score (nLUS) after surfactant treatment. Our data demonstrate a lowering of the nLUS 2h and 12h after surfactant treatment. In their letter to the editor Quarato et al. expressed criticism about the nLUS score validation and about the utility of the Lung Ultrasound (LUS) as a diagnostic tool. They conclude that “LUS can be used only for diagnosing minimal pleural effusion and, at least, as complementary imaging, in addiction to chest radiographs (CR), for monitoring the reduction of subpleural pneumonitic consolidations under therapy”. Our citated study hasn’t focused on validation of the nLUS score or on LUS as a diagnostic tool for neonatal RDS, so we don’t get how Quarato’s concerns can be addressed to our paper. Nevertheless, finding the debate about nLUS or LUS in the neonatal field an occasion to promote an improving in the care of the preterm babies, we will discuss objections raised in Quadrato’s work, point by point.