双工超声检测肾动脉狭窄的准确性:系统回顾

Jessica R. MacLeod, M. Kivell, Madeline E. Shivgulam, Haoxuan Liu, M. O'Brien
{"title":"双工超声检测肾动脉狭窄的准确性:系统回顾","authors":"Jessica R. MacLeod, M. Kivell, Madeline E. Shivgulam, Haoxuan Liu, M. O'Brien","doi":"10.1177/15443167231223551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive imaging technique. Renal artery stenosis (RAS)—a narrowing of the arteries that supply the kidney—is involved in the cause of renal failure, and its gold-standard method of detection is digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Whether DUS is a suitable alternative to DSA or other angiographic modalities has only been reviewed up to 2005, producing mixed results with studies based on older ultrasound technology without a measurement of study quality. Purpose: To provide an up-to-date review of the diagnostic accuracy of DUS for the diagnosis of RAS in comparison with angiography. Methods: Our registered systematic review (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SE9VN) examined articles post-2005. Studies must have compared RAS diagnosis between DUS and angiography. Sources were searched in November 2022 and included Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier (1749 citations; final: n = 34; DSA only: n = 9). Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies 2 tool and results are presented narratively. A total of 2968 (1281 females) patients were included. Duplex ultrasound exhibited moderately high agreement with DSA and other well-established angiographic criteria with the existing literature having low risk of bias and low concern for patient applicability. Studies exhibiting low agreement were generally in smaller samples or used unique definitions of stenosis. Conclusions: Improved study reporting, consistent definitions of stenosis, and a common statistical battery are needed.","PeriodicalId":52510,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Vascular Ultrasound","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Duplex Ultrasound for Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Jessica R. MacLeod, M. Kivell, Madeline E. Shivgulam, Haoxuan Liu, M. O'Brien\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15443167231223551\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive imaging technique. Renal artery stenosis (RAS)—a narrowing of the arteries that supply the kidney—is involved in the cause of renal failure, and its gold-standard method of detection is digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Whether DUS is a suitable alternative to DSA or other angiographic modalities has only been reviewed up to 2005, producing mixed results with studies based on older ultrasound technology without a measurement of study quality. Purpose: To provide an up-to-date review of the diagnostic accuracy of DUS for the diagnosis of RAS in comparison with angiography. Methods: Our registered systematic review (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SE9VN) examined articles post-2005. Studies must have compared RAS diagnosis between DUS and angiography. Sources were searched in November 2022 and included Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier (1749 citations; final: n = 34; DSA only: n = 9). Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies 2 tool and results are presented narratively. A total of 2968 (1281 females) patients were included. Duplex ultrasound exhibited moderately high agreement with DSA and other well-established angiographic criteria with the existing literature having low risk of bias and low concern for patient applicability. Studies exhibiting low agreement were generally in smaller samples or used unique definitions of stenosis. Conclusions: Improved study reporting, consistent definitions of stenosis, and a common statistical battery are needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Vascular Ultrasound\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Vascular Ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15443167231223551\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Vascular Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15443167231223551","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:双相超声(DUS)是一种耐受性良好的无创成像技术。肾动脉狭窄(RAS)--肾脏供血动脉狭窄--与肾衰竭的病因有关,其黄金标准检测方法是数字减影血管造影术(DSA)。DUS 是否是 DSA 或其他血管造影方法的合适替代方法,2005 年之前的研究结果不一,有的研究基于较老的超声技术,有的研究没有对研究质量进行评估。目的:与血管造影术相比,对 DUS 诊断 RAS 的准确性进行最新综述。方法:我们注册的系统性综述(DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SE9VN)审查了 2005 年以后的文章。研究必须比较了 DUS 和血管造影对 RAS 的诊断。我们于2022年11月检索了相关资料来源,包括Scopus、EMBASE、MEDLINE、CINAHL和Academic Search Premier(1749条引文;最终:n = 34;仅DSA:n = 9)。研究质量采用诊断性研究质量评估 2 工具进行评估,结果以叙述方式呈现。共纳入 2968 例(女性 1281 例)患者。双相超声与 DSA 及其他完善的血管造影标准的一致性为中等偏上,现有文献的偏倚风险较低,对患者适用性的关注度也较低。一致性较低的研究通常样本较小,或使用了独特的狭窄定义。结论:需要改进研究报告、统一狭窄定义和通用统计电池。
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
Accuracy of Duplex Ultrasound for Detecting Renal Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review
Background: Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive imaging technique. Renal artery stenosis (RAS)—a narrowing of the arteries that supply the kidney—is involved in the cause of renal failure, and its gold-standard method of detection is digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Whether DUS is a suitable alternative to DSA or other angiographic modalities has only been reviewed up to 2005, producing mixed results with studies based on older ultrasound technology without a measurement of study quality. Purpose: To provide an up-to-date review of the diagnostic accuracy of DUS for the diagnosis of RAS in comparison with angiography. Methods: Our registered systematic review (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SE9VN) examined articles post-2005. Studies must have compared RAS diagnosis between DUS and angiography. Sources were searched in November 2022 and included Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier (1749 citations; final: n = 34; DSA only: n = 9). Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies 2 tool and results are presented narratively. A total of 2968 (1281 females) patients were included. Duplex ultrasound exhibited moderately high agreement with DSA and other well-established angiographic criteria with the existing literature having low risk of bias and low concern for patient applicability. Studies exhibiting low agreement were generally in smaller samples or used unique definitions of stenosis. Conclusions: Improved study reporting, consistent definitions of stenosis, and a common statistical battery are needed.
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
Journal for Vascular Ultrasound
Journal for Vascular Ultrasound Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
The Thrill is Gone Indirect Duplex Ultrasound Diagnosis of Innominate Artery Occlusive Disease Fibromuscular Dysplasia in Vascular Ultrasound Relationship Between Diameter and Pelvic Vein Reflux Single-Center Retrospective Study on the Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Detection of Endoleak After Endovascular Aortic Repair
×
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