探索使用x线平片治疗急性腹痛和肠梗阻的证据与实践差距:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Gary Denham, Tony Smith, Daphne James, Sharmaine McKiernan, Tiffany-Jane Evans
{"title":"探索使用x线平片治疗急性腹痛和肠梗阻的证据与实践差距:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Gary Denham,&nbsp;Tony Smith,&nbsp;Daphne James,&nbsp;Sharmaine McKiernan,&nbsp;Tiffany-Jane Evans","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Previous studies, some dating back several decades, have recommended that the use of plain abdominal radiography should be curbed, particularly with the growth of more accurate imaging modalities. However, evidence from referral data suggests that plain abdominal radiography continues to be a commonly requested examination. The aim of this review was to explore the gap between evidence and practice by re-examining the evidence using a robust methodology, investigating the diagnostic accuracy of plain abdominal radiography.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were identified from electronic databases and reference lists. Eligible studies provided data as to the sensitivity and specificity of plain abdominal radiography for either acute abdominal pain (Group A) or suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Version 2 of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to assess the quality of studies and hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curves and coupled forest plots were generated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies evaluated plain abdominal radiography for acute abdominal pain (Group A) and 10 for suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Two studies investigated both presentations and were included in both groups. Methodological quality of studies was moderately high, though incorporation bias was a common limitation. Sensitivity for Group A studies ranged from 30 to 46%, with specificity from 75 to 88%. For Group B, the range of sensitivity was 48 to 96% and specificity from 50 to 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that use of plain abdominal radiography could be substantially reduced, particularly for patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain. While some guidelines exist, there is sound argument for clinical decision rules for abdominal imaging to inform evidence-based clinical decision-making and radiology referrals.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":"18 2","pages":"159-169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the evidence-practice gap in the use of plain radiography for acute abdominal pain and intestinal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Gary Denham,&nbsp;Tony Smith,&nbsp;Daphne James,&nbsp;Sharmaine McKiernan,&nbsp;Tiffany-Jane Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Previous studies, some dating back several decades, have recommended that the use of plain abdominal radiography should be curbed, particularly with the growth of more accurate imaging modalities. However, evidence from referral data suggests that plain abdominal radiography continues to be a commonly requested examination. The aim of this review was to explore the gap between evidence and practice by re-examining the evidence using a robust methodology, investigating the diagnostic accuracy of plain abdominal radiography.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were identified from electronic databases and reference lists. Eligible studies provided data as to the sensitivity and specificity of plain abdominal radiography for either acute abdominal pain (Group A) or suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Version 2 of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to assess the quality of studies and hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curves and coupled forest plots were generated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies evaluated plain abdominal radiography for acute abdominal pain (Group A) and 10 for suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Two studies investigated both presentations and were included in both groups. Methodological quality of studies was moderately high, though incorporation bias was a common limitation. Sensitivity for Group A studies ranged from 30 to 46%, with specificity from 75 to 88%. For Group B, the range of sensitivity was 48 to 96% and specificity from 50 to 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that use of plain abdominal radiography could be substantially reduced, particularly for patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain. While some guidelines exist, there is sound argument for clinical decision rules for abdominal imaging to inform evidence-based clinical decision-making and radiology referrals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"159-169\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的:以前的研究,有些可以追溯到几十年前,已经建议腹部平片的使用应该受到限制,特别是随着更精确的成像方式的发展。然而,来自转诊资料的证据表明,腹部平片仍然是一种常见的检查要求。本综述的目的是通过使用可靠的方法重新检查证据来探索证据与实践之间的差距,调查腹部平片的诊断准确性。方法:从电子数据库和参考文献中检索研究。符合条件的研究提供了关于腹部平片对急性腹痛(A组)或疑似肠梗阻(B组)的敏感性和特异性的数据。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估第2版来评估研究的质量,并生成了分层汇总的接收者操作者特征曲线和耦合森林图。结果:四项研究评估了腹部平片对急性腹痛的诊断(A组),10项研究评估了疑似肠梗阻(B组)。两项研究调查了两种表现,并被纳入两组。虽然合并偏倚是一个常见的局限性,但研究的方法学质量中等。A组研究的敏感性为30% - 46%,特异性为75% - 88%。B组敏感性为48% ~ 96%,特异性为50% ~ 100%。结论:结果提示腹部平片的使用可以大大减少,特别是对于未分化的急性腹痛患者。虽然存在一些指导方针,但对于腹部成像的临床决策规则,以告知循证临床决策和放射学转诊,仍有充分的理由。
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
Exploring the evidence-practice gap in the use of plain radiography for acute abdominal pain and intestinal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: Previous studies, some dating back several decades, have recommended that the use of plain abdominal radiography should be curbed, particularly with the growth of more accurate imaging modalities. However, evidence from referral data suggests that plain abdominal radiography continues to be a commonly requested examination. The aim of this review was to explore the gap between evidence and practice by re-examining the evidence using a robust methodology, investigating the diagnostic accuracy of plain abdominal radiography.

Methods: Studies were identified from electronic databases and reference lists. Eligible studies provided data as to the sensitivity and specificity of plain abdominal radiography for either acute abdominal pain (Group A) or suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Version 2 of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to assess the quality of studies and hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curves and coupled forest plots were generated.

Results: Four studies evaluated plain abdominal radiography for acute abdominal pain (Group A) and 10 for suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Two studies investigated both presentations and were included in both groups. Methodological quality of studies was moderately high, though incorporation bias was a common limitation. Sensitivity for Group A studies ranged from 30 to 46%, with specificity from 75 to 88%. For Group B, the range of sensitivity was 48 to 96% and specificity from 50 to 100%.

Conclusion: The results suggest that use of plain abdominal radiography could be substantially reduced, particularly for patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain. While some guidelines exist, there is sound argument for clinical decision rules for abdominal imaging to inform evidence-based clinical decision-making and radiology referrals.

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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey Artificial intelligence in health and science: an introspection A relação entre linguagem e práticas pseudocientíficas Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus among individuals with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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