scholarly journals The diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound protocol for shock etiology: A systematic review and meta-analysis

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 406-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean P. Stickles ◽  
Christopher R. Carpenter ◽  
Robert Gekle ◽  
Chadd K. Kraus ◽  
Caryn Scoville ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hypovolemic Shock ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Obstructive Shock

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound exam for undifferentiated shock in patients presenting to the emergency department.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and research meeting abstracts were searched from 1966 to June 2018 for relevant studies. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality, and meta-analysis was conducted to pool performance data of individual categories of shock.ResultsA total of 5,097 non-duplicated studies were identified, of which 58 underwent full-text review; 4 were included for analysis. Study quality by QUADAS-2 was considered overall a low risk of bias. Pooled positive likelihood ratio values ranged from 8.25 (95% CI 3.29 to 20.69) for hypovolemic shock to 40.54 (95% CI 12.06 to 136.28) for obstructive shock. Pooled negative likelihood ratio values ranged from 0.13 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.48) for obstructive shock to 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.62) for mixed-etiology shock.ConclusionThe rapid ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH) exam performs better when used to rule in causes of shock, rather than to definitively exclude specific etiologies. The negative likelihood ratios of the exam by subtype suggest that it most accurately rules out obstructive shock.

scholarly journals LO42: Is point-of-care ultrasound a reliable predictor of outcome during atraumatic, non-shockable cardiac arrest? A systematic review and meta-analysis

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S22-S23
Author(s):  
E. Lalande ◽  
T. Burwash-Brennan ◽  
K. Burns ◽  
P. Atkinson ◽  
M. Lambert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
World Health ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

Introduction: Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) is being increasingly utilized during cardiac arrests for prognosis. Following the publication of recent studies, the goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze the literature to evaluate the accuracy of PoCUS in predicting return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission (SHA), and survival to hospital discharge (SHD) in adult patients with non-traumatic, non- shockable out- of-hospital or emergency department cardiac arrest. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed. A search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Registry was completed from 1974 until August 24th 2018. Adult randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was applied by two independent reviewers. Data analysis was completed according to PRISMA guidelines and with a random effects model for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I-squared statistics. Results: Ten studies (1,485 participants) were included. Cardiac activity on PoCUS had a pooled sensitivity of 59.9% (95% confidence interval 36.5%-79.4%) and specificity of 91.5% (80.8%-96.5%) for ROSC; 74.7% (58.3%-86.2%) and 80.5% (71.7%-87.4%) for SHA; and 69.4% (45.5%-86.0%) and 74.6% (59.8%-85.3%) for SHD. The sensitivity of cardiac activity on PoCUS for predicting ROSC was 24.7%(6.8%-59.4%) in the asystole subgroup compared with 77% (59.4%-88.5%) within the PEA subgroup. Cardiac activity on PoCUS, compared to an absence had an odd ratio of 15.9 (5.9-42.5) for ROSC, 9.8 (4.9-19.4) for SHA and 5.7 (2.1-15.6) for SHD. Positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 6.65 (3.16-14.0) and negative LR was 0.27 (0.12-0.61) for ROSC. Conclusion: Cardiac activity on PoCUS was associated with improved odds for ROSC, SHA, and SHD among adults with non-traumatic asystole and PEA. We report lower sensitivity and higher negative likelihood ratio, but with greater heterogeneity compared to previous systematic reviews. PoCUS may provide valuable information in the management of non-traumatic PEA or asystole, but should not be viewed as the sole predictor in determining outcomes in these patients.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Mobile-Linked Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Sub-Saharan Africa

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1081
Author(s):  
Ernest Osei ◽  
Sphamandla Josias Nkambule ◽  
Portia Nelisiwe Vezi ◽  
Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Point Of Care Diagnostics ◽  
Sub Saharan

Mobile health devices are emerging applications that could help deliver point-of-care (POC) diagnosis, particularly in settings with limited laboratory infrastructure, such as Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The advent of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in an increased deployment and use of mHealth-linked POC diagnostics in SSA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in SSA. Our systematic review and meta-analysis were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items requirements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We exhaustively searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and CINAHL with full text via EBSCOhost databases, from mHealth inception to March 2021. The statistical analyses were conducted using OpenMeta-Analyst software. All 11 included studies were considered for the meta-analysis. The included studies focused on malaria infections, Schistosoma haematobium, Schistosoma mansoni, soil-transmitted helminths, and Trichuris trichiura. The pooled summary of sensitivity and specificity estimates were moderate compared to those of the reference representing the gold standard. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of mobile-linked POC diagnostic devices were as follows: 0.499 (95% CI: 0.458–0.541), 0.535 (95% CI: 0.401–0.663), 0.952 (95% CI: 0.60–1.324), 1.381 (95% CI: 0.391–4.879), and 0.944 (95% CI: 0.579–1.538), respectively. Evidence shows that the diagnostic accuracy of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in detecting infections in SSA is presently moderate. Future research is recommended to evaluate mHealth devices’ diagnostic potential using devices with excellent sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing diseases in this setting.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Mobile-linked Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Sub-Saharan Africa

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Osei ◽  
Sphamandla Josias Nkambule ◽  
Portia Nelisiwe Vezi ◽  
Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Point Of Care Diagnostics ◽  
Sub Saharan

Mobile health devices are emerging applications that could help deliver point-of-care (POC) diagnosis, particularly in settings with limited laboratory infrastructure, such as sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The advent of coronavirus has resulted in an increased deployment and use of mHealth-linked POC diagnostics in SSA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in SSA. Our systematic review and meta-analysis were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items requirements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). We exhaustively searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and CINAHL with full-text via EBSCOhost databases from mHealth inception to March 2021. The statistical analyses were conducted using OpenMeta-Analyst software. All 11 included studies were considered for the meta-analysis. The included studies focused on malaria infections, Schistosoma haematobium, Schistosoma mansoni, soil-transmitted helminths, and trichuris trichiura. The pooled summary of sensitivity and specificity estimates were moderate compared to the gold reference standard. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of mobile-linked POC diagnostic devices were as follows: 0.499 (95% CI: 0.458-0.541); 0.535 (95% CI: 0.401-0.663); 0.952 (95% CI: 0.60-1.324); 1.381 (95% CI: 0.391-4.879); and 0.944 (95% CI: 0.579-1.538), respectively. Evidence shows that mobile-linked POC diagnostics' diagnostic accuracy is presently moderate in detecting infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Future research is recommended to evaluate mHealth devices' diagnostics with excellent sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing diseases in this setting.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation of Fine-Needle Aspiration by Non-Cytopathologists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Adequacy Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Pearson ◽  
Rachel E. Factor ◽  
Sandra K. White ◽  
Brandon S. Walker ◽  
Lester J. Layfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Wide Variability ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
Adequacy Assessment

Objective: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been shown to improve adequacy rates and reduce needle passes. ROSE is often performed by cytopathologists who have limited availability and may be costlier than alternatives. Several recent studies examined the use of alternative evaluators (AEs) for ROSE. A summary of this information could help inform guidelines regarding the use of AEs. The objective was to assess the accuracy of AEs compared to cytopathologists in assessing the adequacy of specimens during ROSE. Study Design: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reporting and study quality were assessed using the STARD guidelines and QUADAS-2. All steps were performed independently by two evaluators. Summary estimates were obtained using the hierarchal method in Stata v14. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Higgins’ I2 statistic. Results: The systematic review identified 13 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for AEs were 97% (95% CI: 92–99%) and 83% (95% CI: 68–92%). There was wide variation in accuracy statistics between studies (I2 = 0.99). Conclusions: AEs sometimes have accuracy that is close to cytopathologists. However, there is wide variability between studies, so it is not possible to provide a broad guideline regarding the use of AEs.

scholarly journals The diagnostic accuracy of isothermal nucleic acid point-of-care tests for human coronaviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pakpoom Subsoontorn ◽  
Manupat Lohitnavy ◽  
Chuenjid Kongkaew
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Point Of Care Tests

AbstractMany recent studies reported coronavirus point-of-care tests (POCTs) based on isothermal amplification. However, the performances of these tests have not been systematically evaluated. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy was used as a guideline for conducting this systematic review. We searched peer-reviewed and preprint articles in PubMed, BioRxiv and MedRxiv up to 28 September 2020 to identify studies that provide data to calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was applied for assessing quality of included studies and Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) was followed for reporting. We included 81 studies from 65 research articles on POCTs of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in other domains. Diagnostic specificities were high (> 0.95) for included studies while sensitivities varied depending on type of assays and sample used. Most studies (n = 51) used reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to diagnose coronaviruses. RT-LAMP of RNA purified from COVID-19 patient samples had pooled sensitivity at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96). RT-LAMP of crude samples had substantially lower sensitivity at 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65–0.87). Abbott ID Now performance was similar to RT-LAMP of crude samples. Diagnostic performances by CRISPR and RT-LAMP on purified RNA were similar. Other diagnostic platforms including RT- recombinase assisted amplification (RT-RAA) and SAMBA-II also offered high sensitivity (> 0.95). Future studies should focus on the use of un-bias patient cohorts, double-blinded index test and detection assays that do not require RNA extraction.

scholarly journals The Accuracy and Prognostic Value of Point‐of‐care Ultrasound for Nephrolithiasis in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 684-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Wong ◽  
Braden Teitge ◽  
Marshall Ross ◽  
Paul Young ◽  
Helen Lee Robertson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document