Chest ultrasound vs. Radiograph for pneumothorax diagnosis performed by emergency healthcare workers in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 Q2 Medicine
Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois, Coline Burlet, Resa E Lewiss, Reza Bagheri, Christophe Perrier, Jeannot Schmidt, Frédéric Dutheil
{"title":"Chest ultrasound vs. Radiograph for pneumothorax diagnosis performed by emergency healthcare workers in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois, Coline Burlet, Resa E Lewiss, Reza Bagheri, Christophe Perrier, Jeannot Schmidt, Frédéric Dutheil","doi":"10.1186/s13089-025-00441-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of bedside chest ultrasonography for the detection and diagnosis of pneumothorax is under debate. We aimed to compare Emergency Healthcare Workers performed chest ultrasonography with chest X-ray in the detection and diagnosis of pneumothorax in the emergency department.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We queried PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from 2000 through January 2024. We included all studies (both retrospective and prospective) that compared the diagnostic performance of chest ultrasonography with chest radiography, using chest computed tomography as the gold standard. Participants are patients consulting in the emergency department and physician that performed the chest ultrasound was an Emergency Healthcare Workers. Studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity for both chest ultrasonography and chest X-ray met inclusion criteria. We applied a random effects meta-analysis methodology. We then performed a meta-regression analysis to search for influencing variables such as technical parameters of echograph, patients and pneumothorax.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>15 studies totaling 3,171 patients were analyzed. 71% of patients were male with a mean age of 40.2 years. The mean prevalence of pneumothorax was 27.6% (95 CI 20.9 to 34.3). Chest ultrasonography had higher sensitivity (79.4%, 68.2 to 90.7) compared to chest X-ray (48.1%, 36.8 to 59.4), and a greater negative predictive value (chest ultrasonography = 94.3%, 91.2 to 97.3, and chest X-ray = 87.9%, 84.1 to 91.6). There was no statistical difference in specificity between the two modalities: chest ultrasonography 99.5%, 99 to 100 and chest X-ray 99.8%, 99.4 to 100) or in positive predictive value (chest ultrasonography 94.2%, 90.5 to 97.9 vs chest X-ray 96.7%,92 to 100). Characteristics of echograph or pneumothorax and patients sociodemographic did not influence results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, chest ultrasonography performed by Emergency Healthcare Workers, had greater sensitivity and negative predictive value than chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in emergency department patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12314293/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-025-00441-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of bedside chest ultrasonography for the detection and diagnosis of pneumothorax is under debate. We aimed to compare Emergency Healthcare Workers performed chest ultrasonography with chest X-ray in the detection and diagnosis of pneumothorax in the emergency department.

Methods: We queried PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from 2000 through January 2024. We included all studies (both retrospective and prospective) that compared the diagnostic performance of chest ultrasonography with chest radiography, using chest computed tomography as the gold standard. Participants are patients consulting in the emergency department and physician that performed the chest ultrasound was an Emergency Healthcare Workers. Studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity for both chest ultrasonography and chest X-ray met inclusion criteria. We applied a random effects meta-analysis methodology. We then performed a meta-regression analysis to search for influencing variables such as technical parameters of echograph, patients and pneumothorax.

Main results: 15 studies totaling 3,171 patients were analyzed. 71% of patients were male with a mean age of 40.2 years. The mean prevalence of pneumothorax was 27.6% (95 CI 20.9 to 34.3). Chest ultrasonography had higher sensitivity (79.4%, 68.2 to 90.7) compared to chest X-ray (48.1%, 36.8 to 59.4), and a greater negative predictive value (chest ultrasonography = 94.3%, 91.2 to 97.3, and chest X-ray = 87.9%, 84.1 to 91.6). There was no statistical difference in specificity between the two modalities: chest ultrasonography 99.5%, 99 to 100 and chest X-ray 99.8%, 99.4 to 100) or in positive predictive value (chest ultrasonography 94.2%, 90.5 to 97.9 vs chest X-ray 96.7%,92 to 100). Characteristics of echograph or pneumothorax and patients sociodemographic did not influence results.

Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, chest ultrasonography performed by Emergency Healthcare Workers, had greater sensitivity and negative predictive value than chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in emergency department patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在急诊科急诊医护人员诊断气胸时胸部超声与x线片的比较:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:床边胸部超声检查对气胸的检测和诊断的有效性一直存在争议。我们的目的是比较急诊医护人员进行胸部超声检查和胸部x线检查对急诊科气胸的发现和诊断。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane、ScienceDirect、Web of Science和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库,检索时间为2000年至2024年1月。我们纳入了所有以胸部计算机断层扫描为金标准,比较胸部超声检查和胸部x线检查诊断性能的研究(包括回顾性和前瞻性)。参与者是在急诊科咨询的患者和进行胸部超声检查的内科医生是急救医护人员。报道胸部超声检查和胸部x线检查敏感性和特异性的研究均符合纳入标准。我们采用随机效应荟萃分析方法。然后进行meta回归分析,寻找超声技术参数、患者和气胸等影响变量。主要结果:15项研究共分析3171例患者。71%的患者为男性,平均年龄40.2岁。气胸的平均患病率为27.6% (95 CI 20.9 ~ 34.3)。胸部超声的敏感性(79.4%,68.2 ~ 90.7)高于胸部x线(48.1%,36.8 ~ 59.4),阴性预测值更高(胸部超声= 94.3%,91.2 ~ 97.3,胸部x线= 87.9%,84.1 ~ 91.6)。两种方式的特异性(胸部超声99.5%,99 ~ 100;胸部x线99.8%,99.4 ~ 100)和阳性预测值(胸部超声94.2%,90.5 ~ 97.9 vs胸部x线96.7%,92 ~ 100)均无统计学差异。超声或气胸的特征和患者的社会人口学特征对结果没有影响。结论:在本系统综述和荟萃分析中,急诊医护人员进行的胸部超声检查对急诊科患者气胸的诊断敏感性和阴性预测价值高于胸片。
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
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信