Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound to predict weaning outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2024.1486636
Zhiyang Zhang, Li Guo, Huawei Wang, Ze Zhang, Limin Shen, Heling Zhao
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound to predict weaning outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Zhiyang Zhang, Li Guo, Huawei Wang, Ze Zhang, Limin Shen, Heling Zhao","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1486636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in predicting weaning failure from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the relevant literature up to January 2024 in the databases Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Two researchers independently screened eligible studies and extracted data; disagreements, if any, were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third-party expert. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 18.0, applying bivariate random-effects models to estimate sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals, as well as to summarize receiver operating characteristic curves. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic, and potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression analysis. The study follows the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review, of which 13 studies (totaling 988 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed an overall sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.91) and a specificity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.83) for lung ultrasound in predicting extubation failure. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.89). Meta-regression analysis identified lung ultrasound thresholds, reference standards (extubation outcomes), and study flow and time bias as significant factors influencing diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that lung ultrasound has high diagnostic accuracy in predicting extubation failure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Despite some study heterogeneity, lung ultrasound proved to be a reliable predictive tool for extubation failure. Future research should focus on standardizing the definition of extubation failure, exploring the impact of different thresholds on the predictive ability of lung ultrasound, and validating its application in various clinical settings to enhance its utility and accuracy in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024555909). The study adhered to the guidelines set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Details of the PROSPERO protocol can be found in Supplementary Table 1.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"1486636"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11563988/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1486636","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound in predicting weaning failure from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.

Methods: We searched the relevant literature up to January 2024 in the databases Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Two researchers independently screened eligible studies and extracted data; disagreements, if any, were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third-party expert. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 18.0, applying bivariate random-effects models to estimate sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals, as well as to summarize receiver operating characteristic curves. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic, and potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression analysis. The study follows the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in reporting.

Results: Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review, of which 13 studies (totaling 988 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed an overall sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.91) and a specificity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.83) for lung ultrasound in predicting extubation failure. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.89). Meta-regression analysis identified lung ultrasound thresholds, reference standards (extubation outcomes), and study flow and time bias as significant factors influencing diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that lung ultrasound has high diagnostic accuracy in predicting extubation failure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Despite some study heterogeneity, lung ultrasound proved to be a reliable predictive tool for extubation failure. Future research should focus on standardizing the definition of extubation failure, exploring the impact of different thresholds on the predictive ability of lung ultrasound, and validating its application in various clinical settings to enhance its utility and accuracy in clinical practice.

Systematic review registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024555909). The study adhered to the guidelines set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Details of the PROSPERO protocol can be found in Supplementary Table 1.

肺部超声波预测断奶结果的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:这是一项系统性综述和荟萃分析:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在系统评估肺部超声在预测重症患者机械通气断流失败方面的诊断准确性:我们在 Web of Science、Cochrane Library、Embase 和 PubMed 等数据库中检索了截至 2024 年 1 月的相关文献。两名研究人员独立筛选符合条件的研究并提取数据,如有分歧,则通过讨论或咨询第三方专家解决。纳入研究的质量采用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具进行评估。统计分析采用 Review Manager 5.3 版和 Stata 18.0 版,应用双变量随机效应模型估算灵敏度、特异性、诊断几率比及其 95% 置信区间,并总结接收者操作特征曲线。研究间的异质性采用 I 平方统计量进行评估,并通过元回归分析探讨了潜在的异质性来源。研究报告遵循《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南:14项研究被纳入系统综述,其中13项研究(共988名患者)被纳入荟萃分析。荟萃分析显示,肺部超声预测拔管失败的总体敏感性为 0.86(95% 置信区间:0.77-0.91),特异性为 0.75(95% 置信区间:0.66-0.83)。接收者操作特征曲线下面积为 0.87(95% 置信区间:0.84-0.89)。元回归分析发现,肺部超声阈值、参考标准(拔管结果)、研究流程和时间偏差是影响诊断准确性的重要因素:该系统综述和荟萃分析表明,肺部超声在预测机械通气重症患者拔管失败方面具有很高的诊断准确性。尽管存在一些研究异质性,但肺部超声被证明是预测拔管失败的可靠工具。未来的研究应侧重于统一拔管失败的定义,探讨不同阈值对肺部超声预测能力的影响,并验证其在不同临床环境中的应用,以提高其在临床实践中的实用性和准确性:本系统综述和荟萃分析已在 PROSPERO 注册(注册号:CRD42024555909)。该研究遵守了系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)的指导方针。PROSPERO 协议的详情见补充表 1。
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
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
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