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
2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1269-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Squizzato ◽  
E. Rancan ◽  
F. Dentali ◽  
M. Bonzini ◽  
L. Guasti ◽  
...  

VASA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Li ◽  
Lei Feng ◽  
Jiangbo Li ◽  
Jian Tang

Abstract. Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted that included studies from January 2000 to August 2015 using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Springer link. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as well as the 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRA for acute PE. Meta-disc software version 1.4 was used to analyze the data. Results: Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (86 %, 95 % CI: 81 % to 90 %) and specificity (99 %, 95 % CI: 98 % to 100 %) demonstrated that MRA diagnosis had limited sensitivity and high specificity in the detection of acute PE. The pooled estimate of PLR (41.64, 95 % CI: 17.97 to 96.48) and NLR (0.17, 95 % CI: 0.11 to 0.27) provided evidence for the low missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis rates of MRA for acute PE. The high diagnostic accuracy of MRA for acute PE was demonstrated by the overall DOR (456.51, 95 % CI: 178.38 - 1168.31) and SROC curves (AUC = 0.9902 ± 0.0061). Conclusions: MRA can be used for the diagnosis of acute PE. However, due to limited sensitivity, MRA cannot be used as a stand-alone test to exclude acute PE.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1074-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Po‐Yang Tsou ◽  
Kenneth P. Chen ◽  
Yu‐Hsun Wang ◽  
Jennifer Fishe ◽  
Jason Gillon ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712090206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waleed Abdellatif ◽  
Mahmoud Ahmed Ebada ◽  
Souad Alkanj ◽  
Ahmed Negida ◽  
Nicolas Murray ◽  
...  

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 154 ◽  
pp. 64-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Squizzato ◽  
Fulvio Pomero ◽  
Attilio Allione ◽  
Roberto Priotto ◽  
Nicoletta Riva ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hai-Ran Ma ◽  
Jing Liu ◽  
Wen-Kang Yan

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


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley K. Matthies ◽  
Michael M. Trauer ◽  
Karl Chopra ◽  
Robert Jarman

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 517-520.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balwinder Singh ◽  
Ajay K. Parsaik ◽  
Dipti Agarwal ◽  
Alok Surana ◽  
Soniya S. Mascarenhas ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document