Full head-to-head comparison of ultrasonography and CT scan in volumetric quantification of pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Emergency Radiology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1007/s10140-024-02252-y
Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Alisa Mohebbi, Iman Kiani, Afshin Mohammadi
{"title":"Full head-to-head comparison of ultrasonography and CT scan in volumetric quantification of pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Alisa Mohebbi, Iman Kiani, Afshin Mohammadi","doi":"10.1007/s10140-024-02252-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pleural effusion is a very common clinical finding. Quantifying pleural effusion volume and its response to treatment over time has become increasingly important for clinicians, which is currently performed via computed tomography (CT) or drainage. To determine and compare ultrasonography (US), CT, and drainage agreements in pleural effusion volumetry. Protocol pre-registration was performed a priori at ( https://osf.io/rnugd/ ). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies up to January 7, 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), QUADAS-C, and Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Volumetric performances of CT, US, and drainage in assessment of pleural effusion volume were evaluated through both aggregated data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) analyses. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Six studies were included with 446 pleural effusion lesions. AD results showed a perfect level of agreement with pooled Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.933 and 0.948 between US and CT. IPD results demonstrated a high level of agreement between US and CT, with Finn's coefficient, ICC, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Pearson correlation coefficient values of 0.856, 0.855, 0.854, and 0.860, respectively. Also, both results showed an overall perfect level of agreement between US and drainage. As for comparing the three combinations, US vs. CT and US vs. drainage were both superior to CT vs. drainage, suggesting the US is a good option for pleural effusion volumetric assessment. Ultrasound provides a highly reliable, to-the-point, cost-effective, and noninvasive method for the assessment of pleural effusion volume and is a great alternative to CT or drainage.</p>","PeriodicalId":11623,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-024-02252-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pleural effusion is a very common clinical finding. Quantifying pleural effusion volume and its response to treatment over time has become increasingly important for clinicians, which is currently performed via computed tomography (CT) or drainage. To determine and compare ultrasonography (US), CT, and drainage agreements in pleural effusion volumetry. Protocol pre-registration was performed a priori at ( https://osf.io/rnugd/ ). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies up to January 7, 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), QUADAS-C, and Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Volumetric performances of CT, US, and drainage in assessment of pleural effusion volume were evaluated through both aggregated data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) analyses. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Six studies were included with 446 pleural effusion lesions. AD results showed a perfect level of agreement with pooled Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.933 and 0.948 between US and CT. IPD results demonstrated a high level of agreement between US and CT, with Finn's coefficient, ICC, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Pearson correlation coefficient values of 0.856, 0.855, 0.854, and 0.860, respectively. Also, both results showed an overall perfect level of agreement between US and drainage. As for comparing the three combinations, US vs. CT and US vs. drainage were both superior to CT vs. drainage, suggesting the US is a good option for pleural effusion volumetric assessment. Ultrasound provides a highly reliable, to-the-point, cost-effective, and noninvasive method for the assessment of pleural effusion volume and is a great alternative to CT or drainage.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在胸腔积液的体积定量方面,对超声波和 CT 扫描进行头对头的全面比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
胸腔积液是一种非常常见的临床症状。量化胸腔积液量及其随着时间推移对治疗的反应对临床医生来说越来越重要,目前主要通过计算机断层扫描(CT)或引流术来实现。目的是确定并比较超声波(US)、CT 和引流术在胸腔积液体积测量中的一致性。事先在 ( https://osf.io/rnugd/ ) 进行了协议预注册。我们检索了 PubMed、Web of Science、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 中截至 2024 年 1 月 7 日的研究。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2(QUADAS-2)、QUADAS-C 和基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)评估偏倚风险。通过汇总数据(AD)和个体参与者数据(IPD)分析,评估了 CT、US 和引流在评估胸腔积液体积方面的体积性能。证据的确定性采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)进行评估。六项研究共纳入 446 例胸腔积液病变。AD结果显示,US和CT之间的皮尔逊相关性(Pearson correlation)和类内相关系数(ICC)分别为0.933和0.948,达到了完美的一致水平。IPD 结果显示 US 和 CT 的一致性很高,芬恩系数、ICC、一致性相关系数 (CCC) 和皮尔逊相关系数值分别为 0.856、0.855、0.854 和 0.860。此外,这两项结果表明 US 和引流之间的整体一致性达到了完美水平。在三种组合的比较中,US vs. CT 和 US vs. 引流均优于 CT vs. 引流,这表明 US 是胸腔积液容积评估的良好选择。超声为胸腔积液容量评估提供了一种高度可靠、准确、经济、无创的方法,是 CT 或引流的最佳替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Radiology
Emergency Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: To advance and improve the radiologic aspects of emergency careTo establish Emergency Radiology as an area of special interest in the field of diagnostic imagingTo improve methods of education in Emergency RadiologyTo provide, through formal meetings, a mechanism for presentation of scientific papers on various aspects of Emergency Radiology and continuing educationTo promote research in Emergency Radiology by clinical and basic science investigators, including residents and other traineesTo act as the resource body on Emergency Radiology for those interested in emergency patient care Members of the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) receive the Emergency Radiology journal as a benefit of membership!
期刊最新文献
Patient factors associated with embolization or splenectomy within 30 days of initiating surveillance for splenic trauma. Unusual causes of Small bowel obstruction: a review of the literature and revisited cross-sectional imaging checklist. Deciphering ovarian torsion: insights from CT imaging analysis. Full head-to-head comparison of ultrasonography and CT scan in volumetric quantification of pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The role of 3D cinematic rendering in the evaluation of upper extremity trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1