胸腔积液诊断的进展:护理点超声与胸部放射成像的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 Q2 Medicine Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2024-01-23 DOI:10.1186/s13089-023-00356-z
Hany A Zaki, Bilal Albaroudi, Eman E Shaban, Ahmed Shaban, Mohamed Elgassim, Nood Dhafi Almarri, Kaleem Basharat, Aftab Mohammad Azad
{"title":"胸腔积液诊断的进展:护理点超声与胸部放射成像的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hany A Zaki, Bilal Albaroudi, Eman E Shaban, Ahmed Shaban, Mohamed Elgassim, Nood Dhafi Almarri, Kaleem Basharat, Aftab Mohammad Azad","doi":"10.1186/s13089-023-00356-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pleural effusion is a fluid buildup in the pleural space that mostly result from congestive heart failure, bacterial pneumonia, malignancy, and pulmonary embolism. The diagnosis of this condition can be challenging as it presents symptoms that may overlap with other conditions; therefore, imaging diagnostic tools such as chest x-ray/radiograph (CXR), point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), and computed tomography (CT) have been employed to make an accurate diagnosis. Although POCUS has high diagnostic accuracy, it is yet to be considered a first-line diagnostic tool as most physicians use radiography. Therefore, the current meta-analysis was designed to compare POCUS to chest radiography.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>n extended search for studies related to our topic was done on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) was performed on all eligible articles obtained from the databases. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and CXR was performed using STATA 16 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 1642 articles, of which only 18 were eligible for inclusion and analysis. The pooled analysis showed that POCUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR (94.54% (95% CI 91.74-97.34) vs. 67.68% (95% CI 58.29-77.08) and 97.88% (95% CI 95.77-99.99) vs. 85.30% (95% CI 80.06-90.54) sensitivity and specificity, respectively). A subgroup analysis based on the position of patients during examinations showed that POCUS carried out in supine and upright positions had higher specificity than other POCUS positions (99%). In comparison, lateral decubitus CXR had higher sensitivity (96%) and specificity (99%) than the other CXR positions. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that CXR had higher specificity in studies that included more than 100 patients (92.74% (95% CI 85.41-100). Moreover, CXR tends to have a higher diagnostic accuracy when other CXR positions are used as reference tests (93.38% (95% CI 86.30-100) and 98.51% (95% CI 94.65-100) sensitivity and specificity, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>POCUS as an imaging modality has higher diagnostic accuracy than CXR in detecting pleural effusion. Moreover, the accuracy is still high even when performed by physicians with less POCUS training. Therefore, we suggest it is considered a first-line imaging tool for diagnosing pleural effusion at the patients' bedside.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10805747/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancement in pleura effusion diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of point-of-care ultrasound versus radiographic thoracic imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Hany A Zaki, Bilal Albaroudi, Eman E Shaban, Ahmed Shaban, Mohamed Elgassim, Nood Dhafi Almarri, Kaleem Basharat, Aftab Mohammad Azad\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13089-023-00356-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pleural effusion is a fluid buildup in the pleural space that mostly result from congestive heart failure, bacterial pneumonia, malignancy, and pulmonary embolism. The diagnosis of this condition can be challenging as it presents symptoms that may overlap with other conditions; therefore, imaging diagnostic tools such as chest x-ray/radiograph (CXR), point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), and computed tomography (CT) have been employed to make an accurate diagnosis. Although POCUS has high diagnostic accuracy, it is yet to be considered a first-line diagnostic tool as most physicians use radiography. Therefore, the current meta-analysis was designed to compare POCUS to chest radiography.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>n extended search for studies related to our topic was done on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) was performed on all eligible articles obtained from the databases. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and CXR was performed using STATA 16 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 1642 articles, of which only 18 were eligible for inclusion and analysis. The pooled analysis showed that POCUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR (94.54% (95% CI 91.74-97.34) vs. 67.68% (95% CI 58.29-77.08) and 97.88% (95% CI 95.77-99.99) vs. 85.30% (95% CI 80.06-90.54) sensitivity and specificity, respectively). A subgroup analysis based on the position of patients during examinations showed that POCUS carried out in supine and upright positions had higher specificity than other POCUS positions (99%). In comparison, lateral decubitus CXR had higher sensitivity (96%) and specificity (99%) than the other CXR positions. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that CXR had higher specificity in studies that included more than 100 patients (92.74% (95% CI 85.41-100). Moreover, CXR tends to have a higher diagnostic accuracy when other CXR positions are used as reference tests (93.38% (95% CI 86.30-100) and 98.51% (95% CI 94.65-100) sensitivity and specificity, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>POCUS as an imaging modality has higher diagnostic accuracy than CXR in detecting pleural effusion. Moreover, the accuracy is still high even when performed by physicians with less POCUS training. Therefore, we suggest it is considered a first-line imaging tool for diagnosing pleural effusion at the patients' bedside.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10805747/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-023-00356-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-023-00356-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胸腔积液是胸膜腔内的液体积聚,主要由充血性心力衰竭、细菌性肺炎、恶性肿瘤和肺栓塞引起。由于胸腔积液的症状可能与其他疾病重叠,因此诊断这种疾病具有挑战性;因此,为了做出准确诊断,人们采用了胸部 X 光/射线照相术(CXR)、护理点超声波检查(POCUS)和计算机断层扫描(CT)等影像诊断工具。虽然 POCUS 具有很高的诊断准确性,但由于大多数医生都使用放射摄影,因此它尚未被视为一线诊断工具。因此,当前的荟萃分析旨在比较 POCUS 和胸部放射摄影。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具(QUADAS-2)对数据库中所有符合条件的文章进行了质量评估。此外,还使用 STATA 16 软件对 POCUS 和 CXR 的诊断准确性进行了评估:结果:我们共搜索到 1642 篇文章,其中只有 18 篇符合纳入和分析的条件。汇总分析表明,与 CXR 相比,POCUS 的诊断准确率更高(敏感性和特异性分别为 94.54% (95% CI 91.74-97.34) vs. 67.68% (95% CI 58.29-77.08) 和 97.88% (95% CI 95.77-99.99) vs. 85.30% (95% CI 80.06-90.54))。根据患者检查时的体位进行的亚组分析表明,仰卧位和直立位进行的 POCUS 比其他 POCUS 体位的特异性更高(99%)。相比之下,侧卧位 CXR 的敏感性(96%)和特异性(99%)均高于其他 CXR 体位。进一步的亚组分析表明,在纳入 100 名以上患者的研究中,CXR 的特异性更高(92.74% (95% CI 85.41-100))。此外,当使用其他CXR位置作为参考检测时,CXR往往具有更高的诊断准确性(敏感性和特异性分别为93.38%(95% CI 86.30-100)和98.51%(95% CI 94.65-100)):结论:在检测胸腔积液方面,POCUS 作为一种成像方式比 CXR 具有更高的诊断准确性。此外,即使由未接受过 POCUS 培训的医生进行操作,其准确性仍然很高。因此,我们建议将其作为在患者床旁诊断胸腔积液的一线成像工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Advancement in pleura effusion diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of point-of-care ultrasound versus radiographic thoracic imaging.

Background: Pleural effusion is a fluid buildup in the pleural space that mostly result from congestive heart failure, bacterial pneumonia, malignancy, and pulmonary embolism. The diagnosis of this condition can be challenging as it presents symptoms that may overlap with other conditions; therefore, imaging diagnostic tools such as chest x-ray/radiograph (CXR), point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), and computed tomography (CT) have been employed to make an accurate diagnosis. Although POCUS has high diagnostic accuracy, it is yet to be considered a first-line diagnostic tool as most physicians use radiography. Therefore, the current meta-analysis was designed to compare POCUS to chest radiography.

Methods: n extended search for studies related to our topic was done on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) was performed on all eligible articles obtained from the databases. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and CXR was performed using STATA 16 software.

Results: Our search yielded 1642 articles, of which only 18 were eligible for inclusion and analysis. The pooled analysis showed that POCUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR (94.54% (95% CI 91.74-97.34) vs. 67.68% (95% CI 58.29-77.08) and 97.88% (95% CI 95.77-99.99) vs. 85.30% (95% CI 80.06-90.54) sensitivity and specificity, respectively). A subgroup analysis based on the position of patients during examinations showed that POCUS carried out in supine and upright positions had higher specificity than other POCUS positions (99%). In comparison, lateral decubitus CXR had higher sensitivity (96%) and specificity (99%) than the other CXR positions. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that CXR had higher specificity in studies that included more than 100 patients (92.74% (95% CI 85.41-100). Moreover, CXR tends to have a higher diagnostic accuracy when other CXR positions are used as reference tests (93.38% (95% CI 86.30-100) and 98.51% (95% CI 94.65-100) sensitivity and specificity, respectively).

Conclusion: POCUS as an imaging modality has higher diagnostic accuracy than CXR in detecting pleural effusion. Moreover, the accuracy is still high even when performed by physicians with less POCUS training. Therefore, we suggest it is considered a first-line imaging tool for diagnosing pleural effusion at the patients' bedside.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Quantitative lung ultrasound findings correlate with radial alveolar count in experimental bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Tele-education in point-of-care ultrasound training. Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study. Student ultrasound education, current view and controversies. Role of Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and telemedicine. Sonographic findings using the SAFE-A protocol in pre- and post-hemodialysis patients.
×
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