对比多普勒超声诊断从右到左短路:系统综述和荟萃分析

Medicina Crítica Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.35366/94898
Miguel Felipe González Trasviña, U. C. Díaz, Saúl Antonio Villagrana Márquez
{"title":"对比多普勒超声诊断从右到左短路:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Miguel Felipe González Trasviña, U. C. Díaz, Saúl Antonio Villagrana Márquez","doi":"10.35366/94898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transcranial UD-c was reported in 34 studies, including 2,964 participants (average age 46.8 years, 52% male); for the set of studies, a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI of 0.93-0.97) and specificity of 95% (95% CI of 0.89-0.98) were calculated; likelihood ratio (+) of 8.93 (95% CI of 7.17-11.0), and a Likelihood ratio (-) of 0.08 (95% CI of 0.05-0.12) were also calculated, and when making Bayes’ nomogram, inferring a probability Pre-Test of 30% (prevalence of CDI in general population), a post-test probability is calculated for their respective Likelihood ratio (+) of 79% (CI 0.75-0.82), and a post-test probability for their respective likelihood (-) of 3% (CI 0.02-0.05). Conclusions: The transcranial UD-c is a test with an excellent diagnostic performance when compared to ETE-c, it has the disadvantage of not allowing to differentiate the type of communication (intracardiac or pulmonary). There is not enough evidence to recommend the use of vertebral or carotid UD-c for the diagnosis of CDI; however, current evidence points to a superiority of transcranial UD-c over these. ABSTRACT Introduction: Right to left","PeriodicalId":344697,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Crítica","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasonido Doppler con contraste para el diagnóstico de cortocircuito de derecha a izquierda: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Felipe González Trasviña, U. C. Díaz, Saúl Antonio Villagrana Márquez\",\"doi\":\"10.35366/94898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Transcranial UD-c was reported in 34 studies, including 2,964 participants (average age 46.8 years, 52% male); for the set of studies, a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI of 0.93-0.97) and specificity of 95% (95% CI of 0.89-0.98) were calculated; likelihood ratio (+) of 8.93 (95% CI of 7.17-11.0), and a Likelihood ratio (-) of 0.08 (95% CI of 0.05-0.12) were also calculated, and when making Bayes’ nomogram, inferring a probability Pre-Test of 30% (prevalence of CDI in general population), a post-test probability is calculated for their respective Likelihood ratio (+) of 79% (CI 0.75-0.82), and a post-test probability for their respective likelihood (-) of 3% (CI 0.02-0.05). Conclusions: The transcranial UD-c is a test with an excellent diagnostic performance when compared to ETE-c, it has the disadvantage of not allowing to differentiate the type of communication (intracardiac or pulmonary). There is not enough evidence to recommend the use of vertebral or carotid UD-c for the diagnosis of CDI; however, current evidence points to a superiority of transcranial UD-c over these. ABSTRACT Introduction: Right to left\",\"PeriodicalId\":344697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina Crítica\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina Crítica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35366/94898\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Crítica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35366/94898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

34项研究报告了经颅UD-c,包括2,964名参与者(平均年龄46.8岁,52%为男性);对于这组研究,计算了95%的敏感性(95% CI为0.93-0.97)和95%的特异性(95% CI为0.89-0.98);计算似然比(+)为8.93 (95% CI为7.17-11.0),似然比(-)为0.08 (95% CI为0.05-0.12),在制作贝叶斯正态图时,推断Pre-Test的概率为30%(一般人群中CDI的患病率),计算其各自的似然比(+)为79% (CI 0.75-0.82),计算其各自的似然比(-)的后验概率为3% (CI 0.02-0.05)。结论:经颅UD-c与et -c相比诊断性能较好,但其缺点是不能区分通信类型(心内或肺)。没有足够的证据推荐使用椎动脉或颈动脉UD-c来诊断CDI;然而,目前的证据表明经颅UD-c优于这些。简介:从右到左
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ultrasonido Doppler con contraste para el diagnóstico de cortocircuito de derecha a izquierda: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis
Transcranial UD-c was reported in 34 studies, including 2,964 participants (average age 46.8 years, 52% male); for the set of studies, a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI of 0.93-0.97) and specificity of 95% (95% CI of 0.89-0.98) were calculated; likelihood ratio (+) of 8.93 (95% CI of 7.17-11.0), and a Likelihood ratio (-) of 0.08 (95% CI of 0.05-0.12) were also calculated, and when making Bayes’ nomogram, inferring a probability Pre-Test of 30% (prevalence of CDI in general population), a post-test probability is calculated for their respective Likelihood ratio (+) of 79% (CI 0.75-0.82), and a post-test probability for their respective likelihood (-) of 3% (CI 0.02-0.05). Conclusions: The transcranial UD-c is a test with an excellent diagnostic performance when compared to ETE-c, it has the disadvantage of not allowing to differentiate the type of communication (intracardiac or pulmonary). There is not enough evidence to recommend the use of vertebral or carotid UD-c for the diagnosis of CDI; however, current evidence points to a superiority of transcranial UD-c over these. ABSTRACT Introduction: Right to left
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
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