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

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

Diagnostic Accuracy of Dual-Energy CT in Detection of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712090206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waleed Abdellatif ◽  
Mahmoud Ahmed Ebada ◽  
Souad Alkanj ◽  
Ahmed Negida ◽  
Nicolas Murray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Acute Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Dual Energy Computed Tomography ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the detection of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: We searched Medline (via PubMed), EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant published studies. We selected studies assessing the accuracy of DECT in the detection of PE. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was drawn to get the Cochran Q-index and the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Seven studies were included in our systematic review. Of the 182 patients included, 108 patients had PEs. The pooled analysis showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.4%-94.1%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-98.5%), respectively. The pooled PLR was 8.186 (95% CI: 3.726-17.986), while the pooled NLR was 0.159 (95% CI: 0.093-0.270). Cochran-Q was 0.8712, and AUC was 0.935 in the sROC curve. Conclusion: Dual-energy computed tomography shows high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the detection of acute PE. The high PLR highlights the high clinical importance of DECT as a prevalence-independent, rule-in test. Studies with a larger sample size with standardized reference tests are still needed to increase the statistical power of the study and support these findings.

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

C0383 Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism: A meta-analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 130 ◽  
pp. S126
Author(s):  
Alessandro Squizzato ◽  
Elena Rancan ◽  
Francesco Dentali ◽  
Walter Ageno
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Meta Analysis

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.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 517-520.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balwinder Singh ◽  
Ajay K. Parsaik ◽  
Dipti Agarwal ◽  
Alok Surana ◽  
Soniya S. Mascarenhas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rule Out

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of combined thoracic and cardiac sonography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. e0235940
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Kagima ◽  
Marie Stolbrink ◽  
Sheila Masheti ◽  
Collins Mbaiyani ◽  
Aziz Munubi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis

Diagnostic accuracy of focused deep venous, lung, cardiac and multiorgan ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thorax ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. thoraxjnl-2021-216838
Author(s):  
Casper Falster ◽  
Niels Jacobsen ◽  
Karen Ehlers Coman ◽  
Mikkel Højlund ◽  
Thomas Agerbo Gaist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Endobronchial Ultrasound ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Suspected Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Reference Test

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched on 2 July 2020 with no restrictions on the date of publication. Subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of pulmonary embolism, ultrasound and diagnosis were used.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies reported sensitivity and specificity of deep venous, lung, cardiac or multiorgan ultrasound in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, using an adequate reference-test. Prospective, cross-sectional and retrospective studies were considered for eligibility. No restrictions were made on language. Studies were excluded if a control group consisted of healthy volunteers or if transesophageal or endobronchial ultrasound was used. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2. Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed by construction of hierarchical summary receiver operator curves. I2 was used to assess the study heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity of reported ultrasound signs, stratified by organ approach (deep venous, lung, cardiac and multiorgan). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by pretest probability of pulmonary embolism.Results6378 references were identified, and 70 studies included. The study population comprised 9664 patients with a prevalence of pulmonary embolism of 39.9% (3852/9664). Risk of bias in at least one domain was found in 98.6% (69/70) of included studies. Most frequently, 72.8% (51/70) of studies reported >24 hours between ultrasound examination and reference test or did not disclose time interval at all. Level of heterogeneity ranged from 0% to 100%. Most notable ultrasound signs were bilateral compression of femoral and popliteal veins (22 studies; 4708 patients; sensitivity 43.7% (36.3% to 51.4%); specificity 96.7% (95.4% to 97.6%)), presence of at least one hypoechoic pleural-based lesion (19 studies; 2134 patients; sensitivity 81.4% (73.2% to 87.5%); specificity 87.4% (80.9% to 91.9%)), D-sign (13 studies; 1579 patients; sensitivity 29.7% (24.6% to 35.4%); specificity 96.2% (93.1% to 98.0%)), visible right ventricular thrombus (5 studies; 995 patients; sensitivity 4.7% (2.7% to 8.1%); specificity 100% (99.0% to 100%)) and McConnell’s sign (11 studies; 1480 patients; sensitivity 29.1% (20.0% to 40.1%); specificity 98.6% (96.7% to 99.4%)).ConclusionSeveral ultrasound signs exhibit a high specificity for pulmonary embolism, suggesting that implementation of ultrasound in the initial assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism may improve the selection of patients for radiation imaging.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184313.

scholarly journals SPECT V/Q for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcome

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e022024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Yves Le Roux ◽  
Philippe Robin ◽  
Cécile Tromeur ◽  
Alexandra Davis ◽  
Helia Robert-Ebadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document