scholarly journals 2088322 A Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Retained Foreign Bodies in the Skin and Soft Tissue

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. S32
Author(s):  
Joshua Davis ◽  
Byron Czerniski ◽  
Arthur Au ◽  
Isaac Farrell ◽  
Srikar Adhikari ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 777-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Davis ◽  
Byron Czerniski ◽  
Arthur Au ◽  
Srikar Adhikari ◽  
Isaac Farrell ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 465-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manaf H. Younis ◽  
Hasan A. Abu-Hijleh ◽  
Osama O. Aldahamsheh ◽  
Abdulrahman Abualruz ◽  
Lukman Thalib

CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S24-S24 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Fernando ◽  
A. Tran ◽  
W. Cheng ◽  
M. Taljaard ◽  
B. Rochwerg ◽  
...  

Introduction: Necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI), a potentially life-threatening diagnosis, is often not immediately recognized by clinicians. Delays in diagnosis are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We sought to summarize and compare the accuracy of physical exam, imaging, and Laboratory Risk Indicator of Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) Score used to confirm suspected NSTI in adult patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and 4 other databases from inception through November 2017. We included only English studies (randomized controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of testing or LRINEC Score. Outcome was NSTI confirmed by surgery or histopathology. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria. Diagnostic accuracy summary estimates were obtained from the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic model. Results: We included 21 studies (n=6,044) in the meta-analysis. Of physical exam signs, pooled sensitivity and specificity for fever (49.4% [95% CI: 41.4-57.5], 78.0% [95% CI: 52.2-92.0]), hemorrhagic bullae (30.8% [95% CI: 16.2-50.6], 94.2% [95% CI: 82.9-98.2]) and hypotension (20.8% [95% CI: 7.7-45.2], 97.9% [95% CI: 89.1-99.6]) were generated. Computed tomography (CT) had 88.5% [95% CI: 55.5-97.9] sensitivity and 93.3% [95% CI: 80.8-97.9] specificity, while plain radiography had 48.9% [95% CI: 24.9-73.4] sensitivity and 94.0% [95% CI: 63.8-99.3] specificity. Finally, LRINEC 6 (traditional threshold) had 67.5% [95% CI: 48.3-82.3] sensitivity and 86.7% [95% CI: 77.6-92.5] specificity, while a LRINEC 8 had 94.9% [95% CI: 89.4-97.6] specificity but 40.8% [95% CI: 28.6-54.2] sensitivity. Conclusion: The absence of any one physical exam feature (e.g. fever or hypotension) is not sufficient to rule-out NSTI. CT is superior to plain radiography. The LRINEC Score had poor sensitivity, suggesting that a low score is not sufficient to rule-out NSTI. For patients with suspected NSTI, further evaluation is warranted. While no single test is sensitive, patients with high-risk features should receive early surgical consultation for definitive diagnosis and management.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-247
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Qingtao Zhao ◽  
Shuyu Wang

Background: Serum periostin has been proposed as a noninvasive biomarker for asthma diagnosis and management. However, its accuracy for the diagnosis of asthma in different populations is not completely clear. Methods: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of periostin level in the clinical determination of asthma. Several medical literature data bases were searched for relevant studies through December 1, 2019. The numbers of patients with true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results for the periostin level were extracted from each individual study. We assessed the risk of bias by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. We used the meta-analysis to produce summary estimates of accuracy. Results: In total, nine studies with 1757 subjects met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios for the detection of asthma were 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38‐0.76), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74‐0.93), and 8.28 (95% CI, 3.67‐18.68), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79‐0.85). And significant publication bias was found in this meta‐analysis (p = 0.39). Conclusion: Serum periostin may be used for the diagnosis of asthma, with moderate diagnostic accuracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document