急诊医生对深静脉血栓进行超声检查:系统回顾。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Daniel Hercz, Oren J Mechanic, Marcia Varella, Francisco Fajardo, Robert L Levine
{"title":"急诊医生对深静脉血栓进行超声检查:系统回顾。","authors":"Daniel Hercz, Oren J Mechanic, Marcia Varella, Francisco Fajardo, Robert L Levine","doi":"10.5811/westjem.18125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by emergency physicians (EP) has emerged as an effective alternative to radiology department ultrasounds for the diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Systematic reviews suggested good sensitivity and specificity overall for EP-performed POCUS for DVT diagnosis, yet high levels of heterogeneity were reported.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to provide the most up-to-date estimates of the accuracy of EP-performed POCUS for diagnosis of DVT and to explore potential correlations with test performance. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE and Embase for original, primary data articles from January 2012-June 2021 comparing the efficacy of POCUS performed by EPs to the local standard. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for individual articles are reported. We obtained summary measures of sensitivity, specificity, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using bivariate mixed-effects regression models. We performed meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses as planned in the protocol CRD42021268799 submitted to PROSPERO.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen publications fit the inclusion criteria, totaling 2,511 examinations. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95% CI 82%-95%) and 95% (CI 91%-97%), respectively. Subgroup analyses by EP experience found significantly better accuracy for exams performed by EP specialists (93%, CI 88%-97%) vs trainees (77%, CI 60%-94%). Specificity for EP specialists (97%, CI 94%-99%) was higher than for trainees (87%, CI 76%-99%, <i>P</i> = 0.01). Three-point compression ultrasound (CUS) was more sensitive than two-point CUS but was only statistically significant when limited to EP specialists (92% vs 88%, <i>P</i> = 0.07, and 95% vs 88%, <i>P</i> = 0.02, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound performed by emergency physicians is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected DVT when performed by trained attending EPs. Three-point compression ultrasound examination may be more sensitive than two-point CUS.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"282-290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000565/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound Performed by Emergency Physicians for Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Hercz, Oren J Mechanic, Marcia Varella, Francisco Fajardo, Robert L Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.5811/westjem.18125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by emergency physicians (EP) has emerged as an effective alternative to radiology department ultrasounds for the diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Systematic reviews suggested good sensitivity and specificity overall for EP-performed POCUS for DVT diagnosis, yet high levels of heterogeneity were reported.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to provide the most up-to-date estimates of the accuracy of EP-performed POCUS for diagnosis of DVT and to explore potential correlations with test performance. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE and Embase for original, primary data articles from January 2012-June 2021 comparing the efficacy of POCUS performed by EPs to the local standard. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for individual articles are reported. We obtained summary measures of sensitivity, specificity, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using bivariate mixed-effects regression models. We performed meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses as planned in the protocol CRD42021268799 submitted to PROSPERO.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen publications fit the inclusion criteria, totaling 2,511 examinations. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95% CI 82%-95%) and 95% (CI 91%-97%), respectively. Subgroup analyses by EP experience found significantly better accuracy for exams performed by EP specialists (93%, CI 88%-97%) vs trainees (77%, CI 60%-94%). Specificity for EP specialists (97%, CI 94%-99%) was higher than for trainees (87%, CI 76%-99%, <i>P</i> = 0.01). Three-point compression ultrasound (CUS) was more sensitive than two-point CUS but was only statistically significant when limited to EP specialists (92% vs 88%, <i>P</i> = 0.07, and 95% vs 88%, <i>P</i> = 0.02, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound performed by emergency physicians is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected DVT when performed by trained attending EPs. Three-point compression ultrasound examination may be more sensitive than two-point CUS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"282-290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000565/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18125\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18125","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:由急诊医生(EP)实施的护理点超声(POCUS)已成为放射科超声诊断下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)的有效替代方法。系统综述显示,由急诊科医生实施的 POCUS 诊断深静脉血栓的灵敏度和特异性总体良好,但异质性较高:在本系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们旨在提供最新的由 EP 操作的 POCUS 诊断深静脉血栓的准确性估计值,并探讨与测试性能的潜在相关性。我们在 MEDLINE 和 Embase 中对 2012 年 1 月至 2021 年 6 月期间的原始原始数据文章进行了系统检索,比较了由 EP 实施的 POCUS 与当地标准的疗效。报告了单篇文章的诊断准确性研究质量评估-2。我们使用双变量混合效应回归模型获得了灵敏度、特异性及其相应的 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的汇总测量值。我们按照提交给 PROSPERO 的 CRD42021268799 方案中的计划进行了元回归、亚组和敏感性分析:15篇文献符合纳入标准,共进行了2511次检查。汇总灵敏度和特异度分别为 90% (95% CI 82%-95%) 和 95% (CI 91%-97%)。根据 EP 经验进行的分组分析发现,由 EP 专家(93%,CI 88%-97%)与受训人员(77%,CI 60%-94%)进行的检查的准确性明显更高。EP 专家的特异性(97%,CI 94%-99%)高于受训者(87%,CI 76%-99%,P = 0.01)。三点加压超声(CUS)比两点加压超声更敏感,但仅限于急诊科专家(分别为92% vs 88%,P = 0.07和95% vs 88%,P = 0.02):结论:急诊医生进行的床旁超声检查在由受过培训的急诊科主治医生进行时,对疑似深静脉血栓的诊断具有敏感性和特异性。三点压缩超声检查可能比两点 CUS 更为敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ultrasound Performed by Emergency Physicians for Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by emergency physicians (EP) has emerged as an effective alternative to radiology department ultrasounds for the diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Systematic reviews suggested good sensitivity and specificity overall for EP-performed POCUS for DVT diagnosis, yet high levels of heterogeneity were reported.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to provide the most up-to-date estimates of the accuracy of EP-performed POCUS for diagnosis of DVT and to explore potential correlations with test performance. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE and Embase for original, primary data articles from January 2012-June 2021 comparing the efficacy of POCUS performed by EPs to the local standard. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for individual articles are reported. We obtained summary measures of sensitivity, specificity, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using bivariate mixed-effects regression models. We performed meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses as planned in the protocol CRD42021268799 submitted to PROSPERO.

Results: Fifteen publications fit the inclusion criteria, totaling 2,511 examinations. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95% CI 82%-95%) and 95% (CI 91%-97%), respectively. Subgroup analyses by EP experience found significantly better accuracy for exams performed by EP specialists (93%, CI 88%-97%) vs trainees (77%, CI 60%-94%). Specificity for EP specialists (97%, CI 94%-99%) was higher than for trainees (87%, CI 76%-99%, P = 0.01). Three-point compression ultrasound (CUS) was more sensitive than two-point CUS but was only statistically significant when limited to EP specialists (92% vs 88%, P = 0.07, and 95% vs 88%, P = 0.02, respectively).

Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasound performed by emergency physicians is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of suspected DVT when performed by trained attending EPs. Three-point compression ultrasound examination may be more sensitive than two-point CUS.

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
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
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