Management of patients presenting to the emergency department with sudden onset severe headache: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies

M. Walton, R. Hodgson, A. Eastwood, M. Harden, J. Storey, Taj Hassan, Marc Stuart Randall, Abu Hassan, John Williams, R. Wade
{"title":"Management of patients presenting to the emergency department with sudden onset severe headache: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies","authors":"M. Walton, R. Hodgson, A. Eastwood, M. Harden, J. Storey, Taj Hassan, Marc Stuart Randall, Abu Hassan, John Williams, R. Wade","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2021-211900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Advances in imaging technologies have precipitated uncertainty and inconsistency in the management of neurologically intact patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with non-traumatic sudden onset severe headache with a clinical suspicion of subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate diagnostic strategies in these patients. Methods Studies assessing any decision rule or diagnostic test for evaluating neurologically intact adults with a severe headache, reaching maximum intensity within 1 hour, were eligible. Eighteen databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Where appropriate, hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis was used to synthesise diagnostic accuracy results. Results Thirty-seven studies were included. Eight studies assessing the Ottawa SAH clinical decision rule were pooled; sensitivity 99.5% (95% CI 90.8 to 100), specificity 24% (95% CI 15.5 to 34.4). Four studies assessing CT within 6 hours of headache onset were pooled; sensitivity 98.7% (95% CI 96.5 to 100), specificity 100% (95% CI 99.7 to 100). The sensitivity of CT beyond 6 hours was considerably lower (≤90%; 2 studies). Three studies assessing lumbar puncture (LP; spectrophotometric analysis) following negative CT were pooled; sensitivity 100% (95% CI 100 to 100), specificity 95% (95% CI 86.0 to 98.5). Conclusion The Ottawa SAH Rule rules out further investigation in only a small proportion of patients. CT undertaken within 6 hours (with expertise of a neuroradiologist or radiologist who routinely interprets brain images) is highly accurate and likely to be sufficient to rule out SAH; CT beyond 6 hours is much less sensitive. The CT–LP pathway is highly sensitive for detecting SAH and some alternative diagnoses, although LP results in some false positive results.","PeriodicalId":410922,"journal":{"name":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","volume":"135 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Advances in imaging technologies have precipitated uncertainty and inconsistency in the management of neurologically intact patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with non-traumatic sudden onset severe headache with a clinical suspicion of subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate diagnostic strategies in these patients. Methods Studies assessing any decision rule or diagnostic test for evaluating neurologically intact adults with a severe headache, reaching maximum intensity within 1 hour, were eligible. Eighteen databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Where appropriate, hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis was used to synthesise diagnostic accuracy results. Results Thirty-seven studies were included. Eight studies assessing the Ottawa SAH clinical decision rule were pooled; sensitivity 99.5% (95% CI 90.8 to 100), specificity 24% (95% CI 15.5 to 34.4). Four studies assessing CT within 6 hours of headache onset were pooled; sensitivity 98.7% (95% CI 96.5 to 100), specificity 100% (95% CI 99.7 to 100). The sensitivity of CT beyond 6 hours was considerably lower (≤90%; 2 studies). Three studies assessing lumbar puncture (LP; spectrophotometric analysis) following negative CT were pooled; sensitivity 100% (95% CI 100 to 100), specificity 95% (95% CI 86.0 to 98.5). Conclusion The Ottawa SAH Rule rules out further investigation in only a small proportion of patients. CT undertaken within 6 hours (with expertise of a neuroradiologist or radiologist who routinely interprets brain images) is highly accurate and likely to be sufficient to rule out SAH; CT beyond 6 hours is much less sensitive. The CT–LP pathway is highly sensitive for detecting SAH and some alternative diagnoses, although LP results in some false positive results.
急诊科突发严重头痛患者的管理:诊断准确性研究的系统回顾
目的影像学技术的进步导致了神经系统完整患者在急诊(ED)非外伤性突发性严重头痛并临床怀疑蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)时处理的不确定性和不一致性。本系统综述的目的是评估这些患者的诊断策略。方法在1小时内达到最大强度的神经功能完整的成人严重头痛患者中,任何评估决策规则或诊断测试的研究都是合格的。检索了18个数据库(包括MEDLINE和Embase)。采用QUADAS-2评估质量。在适当的情况下,采用分层双变量荟萃分析来综合诊断准确性结果。结果纳入37项研究。8项评估渥太华SAH临床决策规则的研究被汇总;敏感性99.5% (95% CI 90.8 ~ 100),特异性24% (95% CI 15.5 ~ 34.4)。汇总了四项评估头痛发作6小时内CT的研究;灵敏度98.7% (95% CI 96.5 ~ 100),特异性100% (95% CI 99.7 ~ 100)。超过6小时的CT灵敏度明显较低(≤90%;2研究)。三项评估腰椎穿刺(LP;分光光度分析),合并CT阴性患者;敏感性100% (95% CI 100 ~ 100),特异性95% (95% CI 86.0 ~ 98.5)。结论渥太华SAH规则只排除了一小部分患者的进一步调查。在6小时内进行CT(由神经放射学家或常规解释脑图像的放射学家的专业知识)是高度准确的,可能足以排除SAH;超过6小时的CT就不那么敏感了。CT-LP途径对检测SAH和一些替代诊断非常敏感,尽管LP会导致一些假阳性结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信