腹部超声波诊断急性腹痛患者腹腔积气的准确性:一项试点研究。

IF 3.6 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Critical Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2015-12-01 Epub Date: 2015-10-06 DOI:10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6
Peiman Nazerian, Camilla Tozzetti, Simone Vanni, Maurizio Bartolucci, Simona Gualtieri, Federica Trausi, Marco Vittorini, Elisabetta Catini, Gian Alfonso Cibinel, Stefano Grifoni
{"title":"腹部超声波诊断急性腹痛患者腹腔积气的准确性:一项试点研究。","authors":"Peiman Nazerian, Camilla Tozzetti, Simone Vanni, Maurizio Bartolucci, Simona Gualtieri, Federica Trausi, Marco Vittorini, Elisabetta Catini, Gian Alfonso Cibinel, Stefano Grifoni","doi":"10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pneumoperitoneum is a rare cause of abdominal pain characterized by a high mortality. Ultrasonography (US) can detect free intraperitoneal air; however, its accuracy remains unclear. The aims of this pilot study were to define the diagnostic performance and the reliability of abdominal US for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational study. Four senior and two junior physicians were shown, in an unpaired randomized order, abdominal US videos from 11 patients with and 11 patients without pneumoperitoneum. Abdominal US videos were obtained from consecutive patients presenting to ED complaining abdominal pain with the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum established by CT. Abdominal US was performed according to a standardized protocol that included the following scans: epigastrium, right and left hypochondrium, umbilical area and right hypochondrium with the patient lying on the left flank. We evaluated accuracy, intra- and inter-observer agreement of abdominal US when reviewed by senior physicians. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of a \"2 scan-fast exam\" (epigastrium and right hypochondrium) vs the full US examination and the accuracy of physicians expert in US vs nonexpert ones. Finally, accuracy of US was compared with abdominal radiography in patients with available images.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Considering senior revision, accuracy of abdominal US was 88.6 % (95 % CI 79.4-92.4 %) with a sensitivity of 95.5 % (95 % CI 86.3-99.2 %) and a specificity of 81.8 % (95 % CI 72.6-85.5 %). Inter- and intra-observer agreement (k) were 0.64 and 0.95, respectively. Accuracy of a \"2 scan-fast exam\" (87.5 %, 95 % CI 77.9-92.4 %) was similar to global exam. Sensitivity of abdominal radiography (72.2 %, 95 % CI 54.8-85.7 %) was lower than that of abdominal US, while specificity (92.5 %, 95 % CI 79.5-98.3 %) was higher. Accuracy (68.2 %, 95 % CI 51.4-80.9 %) of junior reviewers evaluating US was lower than senior reviewers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Senior physicians can recognize US signs of pneumoperitoneum with a good accuracy and reliability; sensitivity of US could be superior to abdominal radiography and a 2 fast-scan exam seems as accurate as full abdominal examination. US could be a useful bedside screening test for pneumoperitoneum. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02004925; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.</p>","PeriodicalId":46598,"journal":{"name":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of abdominal ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum in patients with acute abdominal pain: a pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Peiman Nazerian, Camilla Tozzetti, Simone Vanni, Maurizio Bartolucci, Simona Gualtieri, Federica Trausi, Marco Vittorini, Elisabetta Catini, Gian Alfonso Cibinel, Stefano Grifoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pneumoperitoneum is a rare cause of abdominal pain characterized by a high mortality. Ultrasonography (US) can detect free intraperitoneal air; however, its accuracy remains unclear. The aims of this pilot study were to define the diagnostic performance and the reliability of abdominal US for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational study. Four senior and two junior physicians were shown, in an unpaired randomized order, abdominal US videos from 11 patients with and 11 patients without pneumoperitoneum. Abdominal US videos were obtained from consecutive patients presenting to ED complaining abdominal pain with the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum established by CT. Abdominal US was performed according to a standardized protocol that included the following scans: epigastrium, right and left hypochondrium, umbilical area and right hypochondrium with the patient lying on the left flank. We evaluated accuracy, intra- and inter-observer agreement of abdominal US when reviewed by senior physicians. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of a \\\"2 scan-fast exam\\\" (epigastrium and right hypochondrium) vs the full US examination and the accuracy of physicians expert in US vs nonexpert ones. Finally, accuracy of US was compared with abdominal radiography in patients with available images.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Considering senior revision, accuracy of abdominal US was 88.6 % (95 % CI 79.4-92.4 %) with a sensitivity of 95.5 % (95 % CI 86.3-99.2 %) and a specificity of 81.8 % (95 % CI 72.6-85.5 %). Inter- and intra-observer agreement (k) were 0.64 and 0.95, respectively. Accuracy of a \\\"2 scan-fast exam\\\" (87.5 %, 95 % CI 77.9-92.4 %) was similar to global exam. Sensitivity of abdominal radiography (72.2 %, 95 % CI 54.8-85.7 %) was lower than that of abdominal US, while specificity (92.5 %, 95 % CI 79.5-98.3 %) was higher. Accuracy (68.2 %, 95 % CI 51.4-80.9 %) of junior reviewers evaluating US was lower than senior reviewers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Senior physicians can recognize US signs of pneumoperitoneum with a good accuracy and reliability; sensitivity of US could be superior to abdominal radiography and a 2 fast-scan exam seems as accurate as full abdominal examination. US could be a useful bedside screening test for pneumoperitoneum. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02004925; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Ultrasound Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595408/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Ultrasound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/10/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腹腔积气是一种罕见的腹痛病因,死亡率很高。超声波检查(US)可检测腹腔内游离气体,但其准确性仍不明确。这项试验性研究的目的是确定腹部超声诊断腹腔积气的诊断性能和可靠性:这是一项前瞻性观察研究。四名资深医生和两名初级医生以非配对随机顺序观看了 11 名腹腔积气患者和 11 名无腹腔积气患者的腹部 US 视频。腹部 US 视频取自连续就诊于急诊室、主诉腹痛并经 CT 确诊为腹腔积气的患者。腹部 US 按照标准化方案进行,包括以下扫描:上腹部、右侧和左侧下腹部、脐部和右侧下腹部,患者左侧卧。我们评估了资深医生审查腹部 US 的准确性、观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。此外,我们还比较了 "两次快速扫描检查"(上腹和右下腹)与全腹部 US 检查的准确性,以及腹部 US 专家与非专家的准确性。最后,对有影像资料的患者进行了腹部超声波检查和腹部放射线检查的准确性比较:结果:考虑到资深医生的修正,腹部 US 的准确率为 88.6 %(95 % CI 79.4-92.4%),灵敏度为 95.5 %(95 % CI 86.3-99.2%),特异性为 81.8 %(95 % CI 72.6-85.5%)。观察者之间和观察者内部的一致性 (k) 分别为 0.64 和 0.95。2次扫描-快速检查 "的准确率(87.5%,95 % CI 77.9-92.4%)与全面检查相似。腹部放射摄影的敏感性(72.2%,95 % CI 54.8-85.7%)低于腹部 US,而特异性(92.5%,95 % CI 79.5-98.3%)则高于腹部 US。初级审查员评估 US 的准确率(68.2%,95 % CI 51.4-80.9%)低于高级审查员:结论:资深医生能准确可靠地识别腹腔积气的 US 征象;US 的灵敏度可能优于腹部 X 光检查,2 次快速扫描检查似乎与全腹检查一样准确。腹腔镜检查可作为腹腔积气的床旁筛查检查。试验登记 ClinicalTrials.gov;编号:NCT02004925;网址:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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 abdominal ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum in patients with acute abdominal pain: a pilot study.

Background: Pneumoperitoneum is a rare cause of abdominal pain characterized by a high mortality. Ultrasonography (US) can detect free intraperitoneal air; however, its accuracy remains unclear. The aims of this pilot study were to define the diagnostic performance and the reliability of abdominal US for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Four senior and two junior physicians were shown, in an unpaired randomized order, abdominal US videos from 11 patients with and 11 patients without pneumoperitoneum. Abdominal US videos were obtained from consecutive patients presenting to ED complaining abdominal pain with the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum established by CT. Abdominal US was performed according to a standardized protocol that included the following scans: epigastrium, right and left hypochondrium, umbilical area and right hypochondrium with the patient lying on the left flank. We evaluated accuracy, intra- and inter-observer agreement of abdominal US when reviewed by senior physicians. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of a "2 scan-fast exam" (epigastrium and right hypochondrium) vs the full US examination and the accuracy of physicians expert in US vs nonexpert ones. Finally, accuracy of US was compared with abdominal radiography in patients with available images.

Results: Considering senior revision, accuracy of abdominal US was 88.6 % (95 % CI 79.4-92.4 %) with a sensitivity of 95.5 % (95 % CI 86.3-99.2 %) and a specificity of 81.8 % (95 % CI 72.6-85.5 %). Inter- and intra-observer agreement (k) were 0.64 and 0.95, respectively. Accuracy of a "2 scan-fast exam" (87.5 %, 95 % CI 77.9-92.4 %) was similar to global exam. Sensitivity of abdominal radiography (72.2 %, 95 % CI 54.8-85.7 %) was lower than that of abdominal US, while specificity (92.5 %, 95 % CI 79.5-98.3 %) was higher. Accuracy (68.2 %, 95 % CI 51.4-80.9 %) of junior reviewers evaluating US was lower than senior reviewers.

Conclusions: Senior physicians can recognize US signs of pneumoperitoneum with a good accuracy and reliability; sensitivity of US could be superior to abdominal radiography and a 2 fast-scan exam seems as accurate as full abdominal examination. US could be a useful bedside screening test for pneumoperitoneum. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02004925; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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
Critical Ultrasound Journal
Critical Ultrasound Journal RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Point-of-care ultrasound evaluation and puncture simulation of the internal jugular vein by medical students. Interpretation errors in focused cardiac ultrasound by novice pediatric emergency medicine fellow sonologists. Mitral valve velocity time integral and passive leg raise as a measure of volume responsiveness. Diagnostic performance of abdominal point of care ultrasound performed by an emergency physician in acute right iliac fossa pain. Strain analysis for the identification of hypertensive cardiac end-organ damage in the emergency department.
×
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