scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound Performed by Novice Versus Advanced Sonographers for Pneumonia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1074-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Po‐Yang Tsou ◽  
Kenneth P. Chen ◽  
Yu‐Hsun Wang ◽  
Jennifer Fishe ◽  
Jason Gillon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1269-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Squizzato ◽  
E. Rancan ◽  
F. Dentali ◽  
M. Bonzini ◽  
L. Guasti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Meta Analysis

Accuracy and Reliability of Lung Ultrasound to Diagnose Transient Tachypnoea of the Newborn: Evidence from a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai-Ran Ma ◽  
Jing Liu ◽  
Wen-Kang Yan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Diagnostic Efficiency ◽  
Bivariate Model ◽  
Neonatal Respiratory Distress

Objective Transient tachypnoea of the newborn (TTN) is one of the most common causes of neonatal respiratory distress (RD) during the newborn period. Chest radiography (CXR) is commonly used to rule out the diagnosis, but TTN is often misdiagnosed as neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) on the basis of CXR alone. Increasing evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) may be a reliable diagnostic tool for transient tachypnoea of the newborn. However, studies of the diagnostic efficiency of LUS are still lacking. This study was aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of LUS for diagnosing TTN by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Study Design We searched for articles in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases from inception until May 31, 2020. The selected studies were diagnostic accuracy studies that reported the utility of LUS in the diagnosis of TTN. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Then, we created a bivariate model of mixed effects to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of LUS in diagnosing TTN. A summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed to summarize the performance characteristics of LUS. Results Six studies involving 617 newborns were included in the review. LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 0.98 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.92–1.00) and a specificity of 0.99 (CI: 0.91–1.00). The area under the curve for LUS was 1.00 (0.98–1.0). Meta-regression revealed that LUS had a significant diagnostic accuracy for TTN. Conclusion The performance of ultrasound for the detection of TTN was excellent. Considering the various advantages of LUS compared with chest radiographs in diagnosing TTN, this study supports the routine use of LUS for the detection of TTN. Key Points

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley K. Matthies ◽  
Michael M. Trauer ◽  
Karl Chopra ◽  
Robert Jarman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Predictive Values

AbstractBackgroundPoint-of-care (POC) lung ultrasound (LUS) is widely used in the emergency setting and there is an established evidence base across a range of respiratory diseases, including previous viral epidemics. The necessity for rapid testing combined with the limitations of other diagnostic tests has led to the proposal of various potential roles for LUS during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused specifically on the diagnostic accuracy of LUS in adult patients presenting with suspected COVID-19.MethodsTraditional and grey-literature searches were performed on June 1st 2021. Two authors independently carried out the searches, selected studies and completed the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was carried out using established open-source packages in R. We report overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve for LUS. Heterogeneity was determined using the I2 statistic.ResultsTwenty studies were included, providing data from a total of 4,314 patients. The prevalence and admission rates were generally high across all studies. Overall LUS was found to be 87.2% sensitive (95% CI 83.6-90.2) and 69.5% specific (95% CI 62.2-72.5) and demonstrated overall positive and negative predictive values of 3.0 (95% 2.3-4.1) and 0.16 (95% 0.12-0.22) respectively. Separate analyses for each reference standard revealed similar sensitivities and specificities for LUS. Heterogeneity between studies was found to be high, and QUADAS-2 assessment identified risks of bias in many studies.ConclusionDuring a period of high prevalence, LUS is a highly sensitive diagnostic test for COVID-19. However, more research is required to confirm these results in more generalisable populations, including those less likely to be admitted to hospital.

scholarly journals Diagnostic value of lung ultrasound for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 325 ◽  
Author(s):  
HaiRan Ma ◽  
WenKang Yan ◽  
Jing Liu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Neonatal Respiratory Distress

Aim: Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) is one of the most common and severe diseases in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. Increasing evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) may be a reliable diagnostic tool for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for NRDS with a systematic review and meta-analysis.Material and methods: We searched for articles in EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Central from inception until 17 August 2019. The selected studies were diagnostic accuracy studies that reported the utility of LUS in the diagnosis of NRDS. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. Then, we created a bivariate mixed effects model to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of LUS in diagnosing NRDS. A summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed to summarize the performance characteristics of LUS.Results: Nine studies involving 703 infants were included in the review. LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 0.99 (CI: 0.92-1.00) and a specificity of 0.95 (CI: 0.87-0.98). The areas under the curve for LUS was 0.99 (0.98-1.0). Meta-regression revealed that LUS had a significant diagnostic accuracy for NRDS.Conclusion: LUS is a promising method that is easily carried out, inexpensive, nonionizing and repeatable and can be performed at the bedside. Current evidence supports LUS as a useful imaging alternative for the diagnosis of NRDS.

scholarly journals Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038449
Author(s):  
Lisa Helen Telford ◽  
Leila Hussein Abdullahi ◽  
Eleanor Atieno Ochodo ◽  
Liesl Joanna Zuhlke ◽  
Mark Emmanuel Engel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Rheumatic Heart Disease ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Endemic Areas ◽  
Rheumatic Heart ◽  
Receiver Operating

ObjectiveTo summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated.ResultsSix studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only.ConclusionsHAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016051261.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document