scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0251236
Author(s):  
Jacob Bigio ◽  
Mikashmi Kohli ◽  
Joel Shyam Klinton ◽  
Emily MacLean ◽  
Genevieve Gore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reference Standards ◽  
Sputum Smear ◽  
Smear Microscopy ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Findings

The advent of affordable, portable ultrasound devices has led to increasing interest in the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for the detection of pulmonary TB (PTB). We undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for PTB. Five databases were searched for articles published between January 2010 and June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Data on sensitivity and specificity of individual lung ultrasound findings were collected, with variable reference standards including PCR and sputum smear microscopy. Six of 3,919 reviewed articles were included: five in adults and one in children, with a total sample size of 564. Studies had high risk of bias in many domains. In adults, subpleural nodule and lung consolidation were the lung ultrasound findings with the highest sensitivities, ranging from 72.5% to 100.0% and 46.7% to 80.4%, respectively. Only one study reported specificity data. Variability in sensitivity may be due to variable reference standards or may imply operator dependence. There is insufficient evidence to judge the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for PTB. There is also no consensus on the optimal protocols for acquiring and analysing POCUS images for PTB. New studies which minimise potential sources of bias are required to further assess the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for PTB.

The Role of Lung Ultrasound Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A review article

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa J. Musa ◽  
Mohamed Yousef ◽  
Mohammed Adam ◽  
Awadalla Wagealla ◽  
Lubna Boshara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Power Doppler ◽  
Doppler Imaging ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Ultrasound Findings

: Lung ultrasound [LUS] has evolved considerably over the last years. The aim of the current review is to conduct a systematic review reported from a number of studies to show the usefulness of [LUS] and point of care ultrasound for diagnosing COVID-19. A systematic search of electronic data was conducted including the national library of medicine, and the national institute of medicine, PubMed Central [PMC] to identify the articles depended on [LUS] to monitor COVID-19. This review highlights the ultrasound findings reported in articles before the pandemic [11], clinical articles before COVID-19 [14], review studies during the pandemic [27], clinical cases during the pandemic [5] and other varying aims articles. The reviewed studies revealed that ultrasound findings can be used to help in the detection and staging of the disease. The common patterns observed included irregular and thickened A-lines, multiple B-lines ranging from focal to diffuse interstitial consolidation, and pleural effusion. Sub-plural consolidation is found to be associated with the progression of the disease and its complications. Pneumothorax was not recorded for COVID-19 patients. Further improvement in the diagnostic performance of [LUS] for COVID-19 patients can be achieved by using elastography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and power Doppler imaging.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Lisboa Bastos ◽  
Gamuchirai Tavaziva ◽  
Syed Kunal Abidi ◽  
Jonathon R Campbell ◽  
Louis-Patrick Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Immunoglobulin Class

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

scholarly journals A Novel Sensitive Immunoassay Targeting the 5-Methylthio-D-Xylofuranose–Lipoarabinomannan Epitope Meets the WHO's Performance Target for Tuberculosis Diagnosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
George B. Sigal ◽  
Abraham Pinter ◽  
Todd L. Lowary ◽  
Masanori Kawasaki ◽  
Andra Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Sputum Smear ◽  
Smear Microscopy ◽  
Analytical Sensitivity ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Hiv Negative ◽  
Point Of Care Assay ◽  
Performance Target

ABSTRACTThe only currently commercialized point-of-care assay for tuberculosis (TB) that measures lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine (Alere LF-LAM) has insufficient sensitivity. We evaluated the potential of 100 novel monoclonal antibody pairs targeting a variety of LAM epitopes on a sensitive electrochemiluminescence platform to improve the diagnostic accuracy. In the screening, many antibody pairs showed high reactivity to purified LAM but performed poorly at detecting urinary LAM in clinical samples, suggesting differences in antigen structure and immunoreactivity of the different LAM sources. The 12 best antibody pairs from the screening were tested in a retrospective case-control study with urine samples from 75 adults with presumptive TB. The best antibody pair reached femtomolar analytical sensitivity for LAM detection and an overall clinical sensitivity of 93% (confidence interval [CI], 80% to 97%) and specificity of 97% (CI, 85% to 100%). Importantly, in HIV-negative subjects positive for TB by sputum smear microscopy, the test achieved a sensitivity of 80% (CI, 55% to 93%). This compares to an overall sensitivity of 33% (CI, 20% to 48%) of the Alere LF-LAM and a sensitivity of 13% (CI, 4% to 38%) in HIV-negative subjects in the same sample set. The capture antibody targets a unique 5-methylthio-d-xylofuranose (MTX)-dependent epitope in LAM that is specific to theMycobacterium tuberculosiscomplex and shows no cross-reactivity with fast-growing mycobacteria or other bacteria. The present study provides evidence that improved assay methods and reagents lead to increased diagnostic accuracy. The results of this work have informed the development of a sensitive and specific novel LAM point-of-care assay with the aim to meet the WHO's performance target for TB diagnosis.

scholarly journals MP05: Diagnostic accuracy of point of care ultrasound in undifferentiated hypotension presenting to the emergency department: a systematic review

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S43-S44 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Richardson ◽  
O. Loubani ◽  
P. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Full Article ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Strong Conclusion

Introduction: Undifferentiated hypotension remains one of the most life-threatening presentations to emergency departments (ED) around the world. An accurate and rapid initial assessment is essential, as shock carries a high mortality with multiple unique etiologies and management plans. Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as a promising tool to improve these diagnostic and management challenges, yet its reliability in this setting remains unclear. Methods: We performed a systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to June 8, 2018. Databases were reviewed by two independent researchers and all languages were included. The methodological quality of included studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Our primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of PoCUS in hypotension, with secondary outcomes including patient outcomes and changes to management. Results: Our literature search revealed 5345 articles after duplicates were removed, leaving 235 articles for full article review. Following full article review, 9 studies remained and were included in the systematic review. There were 2 randomized control trials, 6 prospective cohort trials, and 1 retrospective cohort trial. For our primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy, eight studies were included; we extracted Kappa values ranging from 0.70 to 0.971, pooled sensitivity ranging from 69% to 88%, and pooled specificity ranging from 88% to 96%. Four studies reported on management change including results reporting shorter time to disposition, change in diagnostic test ordering (18% to 31%), change in consultation (13.6%), change in admission location (12%) and change in management plan (25% to 40%). Only one study reported on patient outcomes, which revealed no survival or length of stay benefit. Conclusion: When assessing for the diagnostic accuracy of PoCUS in the setting of undifferentiated hypotension presenting to the emergency department, we found fair consistency between PoCUS and final diagnosis with high Kappa values, fair to good pooled sensitivities, and good to excellent specificities. There was no strong evidence indicating improved outcomes. However, the large amount of heterogeneity amongst studies has limited our ability to make a strong conclusion except that future research should focus on a uniform study design and patient focused outcomes.

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 Using Lung Point-of-care Ultrasound in Suspected COVID-19: Case Series and Proposed Triage Algorithm

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Duggan ◽  
Andrew Liteplo ◽  
Hamid Shokoohi ◽  
Andrew Goldsmith
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Imaging Modalities ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Findings ◽  
Triage Algorithm ◽  
Lung Point

Introduction: First detected in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic upended the global community in a few short months. Diagnostic testing is currently limited in availability, accuracy, and efficiency. Imaging modalities such as chest radiograph (CXR), computed tomography, and lung ultrasound each demonstrate characteristic findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Lung ultrasound offers benefits over other imaging modalities including portability, cost, reduced exposure of healthcare workers as well as decreased contamination of equipment such as computed tomography scanners. Case Series: Here we present a case series describing consistent lung ultrasound findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 despite variable clinical presentations and CXR findings. We discuss a triage algorithm for clinical applicability and utility of lung point-of-care ultrasound in the setting of COVID-19 and advocate for judicious and targeted use of this tool. Conclusion: Lung point-of-care ultrasound can provide valuable data supporting diagnostic and triage decisions surrounding suspected cases of COVID-19. Prospective studies validating our proposed triage algorithm are warranted.

scholarly journals LO074: Point of care ultrasound for lung B-lines in the early diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure in the emergency department: a systematic review

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S55-S55
Author(s):  
K. McGivery ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
D. Lewis ◽  
L. Taylor ◽  
K. Gadd
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
B Lines

Introduction: Dyspnea is a common presenting problem in the emergency department (ED) that frequently creates a diagnostic challenge for physicians. Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) represents a common cause that requires prompt diagnosis and management. Recent studies on dyspneic patients have suggested a potential role for point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). The objective of this systematic review was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of early bedside lung ultrasound in patients presenting to the ED with dyspnea. Methods: A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, bibliographies of previous systematic reviews, and abstracts from major emergency medicine conferences. We included prospective studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of B-lines from bedside lung ultrasound in the ED patients compared to a clinical diagnosis of ADHF at hospital discharge. The final diagnosis included at least one of CXR, computed tomography, or BNP. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts for possible inclusions. Two separate content experts full text-reviewed selected studies and performed quality analysis using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) questionnaire. Extracted data was assessed with summary receiver operator characteristics curve (SROC) analysis with pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogenity was tested. Results: The electronic search yielded 3674 articles of which six met the inclusion criteria and fulfilled CASP requirements for methodological quality. The total number of patients in these studies was 1911. Heterogeneity was noted; due to poorer performance by novice users. Meta-analysis of the data showed that in detecting ADHF, bedside lung ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity of 89.6% (95% CI 69.5 to 97.0%) and a pooled specificity of 88.4% (95% CI 75.0 to 95.1%). The positive likelihood ratio was 6.01 (95% CI 2.93 to 12.32) and negative likelihood ratio was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.30). Conclusion: This study suggests that in patients presenting to the ED with undifferentiated dyspnea, early point of care lung ultrasound may be used to confirm the diagnosis of ADHF, which may facilitate earlier appropriate management. Test performance may vary according to experience.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document