对比增强 CT 扫描(CECT)用于检测钝性创伤中的空腔脏器和肠系膜损伤--最新文献系统回顾和诊断测试准确性荟萃分析。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Stefano Granieri, Michele Altomare, Alessandro Bonomi, Giada Panagini, Simone Frassini, Stefano Piero Bernardo Cioffi, Giorgio Basta, Andrea Spota, Fabrizio Sammartano, Roberto Bini, Federica Renzi, Elisa Reitano, Osvaldo Chiara, Stefania Cimbanassi
{"title":"对比增强 CT 扫描(CECT)用于检测钝性创伤中的空腔脏器和肠系膜损伤--最新文献系统回顾和诊断测试准确性荟萃分析。","authors":"Stefano Granieri, Michele Altomare, Alessandro Bonomi, Giada Panagini, Simone Frassini, Stefano Piero Bernardo Cioffi, Giorgio Basta, Andrea Spota, Fabrizio Sammartano, Roberto Bini, Federica Renzi, Elisa Reitano, Osvaldo Chiara, Stefania Cimbanassi","doi":"10.1007/s00068-024-02667-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite improved awareness of blunt traumatic hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries (THVMI), the accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) varies considerably among studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy aims to explore the diagnostic performance of CECT in detecting THVMI in blunt trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library datasets from 2000 to 8 September 2023 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023473041). Surgical exploration, autopsy, and discharge from the hospital after monitoring were set as reference standard. To explore the diagnostic accuracy of CECT in detecting THVMI hierarchical models were developed. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to detect sources of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies, for a total of 4537 patients, were deemed eligible. After identification of outliers and sensitivity analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69-0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.8-0.98), 14.65 (95% CI: 4.22-50.85), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.34), 92.3 (95% CI: 29.75-286.34), respectively. The Area under the HSROC curve was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96). Meta-regression analysis identified the year of publication as a covariate significantly associated with heterogeneity. A high risk of bias was detected in the \"patient selection\" domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CECT has a fundamental role in identifying THVMI with high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity. Clinical criteria are still of paramount importance, especially in cases of ambiguous initial CECT images.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Granieri, Michele Altomare, Alessandro Bonomi, Giada Panagini, Simone Frassini, Stefano Piero Bernardo Cioffi, Giorgio Basta, Andrea Spota, Fabrizio Sammartano, Roberto Bini, Federica Renzi, Elisa Reitano, Osvaldo Chiara, Stefania Cimbanassi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00068-024-02667-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite improved awareness of blunt traumatic hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries (THVMI), the accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) varies considerably among studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy aims to explore the diagnostic performance of CECT in detecting THVMI in blunt trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library datasets from 2000 to 8 September 2023 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023473041). Surgical exploration, autopsy, and discharge from the hospital after monitoring were set as reference standard. To explore the diagnostic accuracy of CECT in detecting THVMI hierarchical models were developed. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to detect sources of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies, for a total of 4537 patients, were deemed eligible. After identification of outliers and sensitivity analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69-0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.8-0.98), 14.65 (95% CI: 4.22-50.85), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.34), 92.3 (95% CI: 29.75-286.34), respectively. The Area under the HSROC curve was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96). Meta-regression analysis identified the year of publication as a covariate significantly associated with heterogeneity. A high risk of bias was detected in the \\\"patient selection\\\" domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CECT has a fundamental role in identifying THVMI with high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity. Clinical criteria are still of paramount importance, especially in cases of ambiguous initial CECT images.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02667-9\",\"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":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02667-9","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

背景:尽管人们对钝性创伤空腔脏器和肠系膜损伤(THVMI)的认识有所提高,但对比增强 CT(CECT)的准确性在不同研究中存在很大差异。本研究对检测准确性进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,旨在探讨 CECT 在检测钝性创伤空腔脏器和肠系膜损伤(THVMI)方面的诊断性能:本研究根据 Cochrane 的建议,检索了 2000 年至 2023 年 9 月 8 日期间的 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane Library 数据集(PROSPERO ID:CRD42023473041)。手术探查、尸检和监测后出院被设定为参考标准。为了探讨 CECT 检测 THVMI 的诊断准确性,我们建立了分层模型。使用 QUADAS-2 工具评估了各项研究的偏倚风险。进行了敏感性分析以检测异质性的来源:共有 12 项研究符合条件,共计 4537 名患者。在识别异常值并进行敏感性分析后,汇总的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性似然比以及诊断几率比分别为 0.85(95% CI:0.69-0.93)、0.94(95% CI:0.8-0.98)、14.65(95% CI:4.22-50.85)、0.16(95% CI:0.07-0.34)、92.3(95% CI:29.75-286.34)。HSROC曲线下面积为0.95(95% CI:0.92-0.96)。元回归分析发现,发表年份是与异质性显著相关的协变量。在 "患者选择 "领域发现了高偏倚风险:结论:CECT 在识别 THVMI 方面具有重要作用,其特异性较高,但敏感性欠佳。临床标准仍然至关重要,尤其是在初始 CECT 图像不明确的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Background: Despite improved awareness of blunt traumatic hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries (THVMI), the accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) varies considerably among studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy aims to explore the diagnostic performance of CECT in detecting THVMI in blunt trauma.

Methods: The study was conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library datasets from 2000 to 8 September 2023 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023473041). Surgical exploration, autopsy, and discharge from the hospital after monitoring were set as reference standard. To explore the diagnostic accuracy of CECT in detecting THVMI hierarchical models were developed. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to detect sources of heterogeneity.

Results: Twelve studies, for a total of 4537 patients, were deemed eligible. After identification of outliers and sensitivity analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69-0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.8-0.98), 14.65 (95% CI: 4.22-50.85), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.34), 92.3 (95% CI: 29.75-286.34), respectively. The Area under the HSROC curve was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96). Meta-regression analysis identified the year of publication as a covariate significantly associated with heterogeneity. A high risk of bias was detected in the "patient selection" domains.

Conclusion: CECT has a fundamental role in identifying THVMI with high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity. Clinical criteria are still of paramount importance, especially in cases of ambiguous initial CECT images.

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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
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