{"title":"肺超声诊断心力衰竭的准确性研究系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Erfan Rahmani, Masoud Farrokhi, Mehrdad Farrokhi, Shadi Nouri, Atousa Moghadam Fard, Behnam Hoorshad, Ramin Atighi, Erfan Ghadirzadeh, Michael Tajik, Habibollah Afshang, Aida Naseri, Mohadeseh Asoudehfard, Shiva Samami Kojidi, Arsham Ebnemehdi, Mehdi Rezaei, Maziar Daneshvar, Amirali Makhmalbaf, Sepideh Hassanpour Khodaei, Shirin Farsi, Saber Barazandeh Rad, Fateme Nozari, Pouya Rezaei, Negar Babapour, Salman Delavar, Babak Goodarzy, Lida Zare Lahijan, Sanam Mohammadzadeh, Helena Mehran, Fatemeh Gheibi, Ramtin Shemshadigolafzani, Behnaz Dalvandi, Amir Abderam","doi":"10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the evident impact of ultrasonography on diagnosis in acute care settings, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding its accuracy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for the identification of acute heart failure in patients with suggestive manifestations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from their inception to November 2024 to identify original studies investigating accuracy of LUS for diagnosis of heart failure. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The statistical analysis for pooling the results of diagnostic performance parameters was conducted using Stata and Meta-DiSc softwares.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight included studies in this meta-analysis were published between 2006 and 2024, encompassing a total of 6,783 patients. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies with respect to sensitivity (I<sup>2</sup>=92.51 and P<0.01) and specificity (I<sup>2</sup>=93.79 and P<0.01). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LUS for detection of heart failure were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.93), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), respectively. In addition, pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 7.87 (95% CI, 5.60-11.07), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.10-0.19), and 70.74 (95% CI, 41.98-119.21), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis demonstrates that LUS is a highly practical imaging for diagnosing acute heart failure, with excellent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. It is particularly valuable for excluding the heart failure when the result is negative. However, the influence of outlier and influential studies warrants caution, and future studies should aim to further validate these findings in diverse clinical contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e33"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11868670/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Heart Failure; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Erfan Rahmani, Masoud Farrokhi, Mehrdad Farrokhi, Shadi Nouri, Atousa Moghadam Fard, Behnam Hoorshad, Ramin Atighi, Erfan Ghadirzadeh, Michael Tajik, Habibollah Afshang, Aida Naseri, Mohadeseh Asoudehfard, Shiva Samami Kojidi, Arsham Ebnemehdi, Mehdi Rezaei, Maziar Daneshvar, Amirali Makhmalbaf, Sepideh Hassanpour Khodaei, Shirin Farsi, Saber Barazandeh Rad, Fateme Nozari, Pouya Rezaei, Negar Babapour, Salman Delavar, Babak Goodarzy, Lida Zare Lahijan, Sanam Mohammadzadeh, Helena Mehran, Fatemeh Gheibi, Ramtin Shemshadigolafzani, Behnaz Dalvandi, Amir Abderam\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the evident impact of ultrasonography on diagnosis in acute care settings, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding its accuracy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for the identification of acute heart failure in patients with suggestive manifestations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from their inception to November 2024 to identify original studies investigating accuracy of LUS for diagnosis of heart failure. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The statistical analysis for pooling the results of diagnostic performance parameters was conducted using Stata and Meta-DiSc softwares.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight included studies in this meta-analysis were published between 2006 and 2024, encompassing a total of 6,783 patients. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies with respect to sensitivity (I<sup>2</sup>=92.51 and P<0.01) and specificity (I<sup>2</sup>=93.79 and P<0.01). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LUS for detection of heart failure were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.93), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), respectively. In addition, pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 7.87 (95% CI, 5.60-11.07), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.10-0.19), and 70.74 (95% CI, 41.98-119.21), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis demonstrates that LUS is a highly practical imaging for diagnosing acute heart failure, with excellent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. It is particularly valuable for excluding the heart failure when the result is negative. However, the influence of outlier and influential studies warrants caution, and future studies should aim to further validate these findings in diverse clinical contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"e33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11868670/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2555\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:尽管超声对急性护理诊断有明显的影响,但其准确性仍有很大的不确定性。本研究旨在评估肺超声(LUS)对有提示表现的急性心力衰竭患者的诊断价值。方法:综合检索Medline、Scopus和Web of Science自成立至2024年11月的原始研究,以确定LUS诊断心力衰竭的准确性。数据提取和质量评估由两名独立评审员进行。采用Stata和Meta-DiSc软件对诊断性能参数汇总结果进行统计分析。结果:2006年至2024年间发表了38项纳入本荟萃分析的研究,共涉及6783名患者。纳入的研究在敏感性方面存在显著的异质性(I2=92.51, P2=93.79, p)。结论:我们的荟萃分析表明,LUS是诊断急性心力衰竭的一种非常实用的成像方法,具有出色的敏感性、特异性和准确性。当结果为阴性时,它对排除心力衰竭特别有价值。然而,异常值和有影响力的研究的影响值得谨慎,未来的研究应旨在进一步在不同的临床背景下验证这些发现。
Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Heart Failure; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Introduction: Despite the evident impact of ultrasonography on diagnosis in acute care settings, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding its accuracy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for the identification of acute heart failure in patients with suggestive manifestations.
Methods: Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from their inception to November 2024 to identify original studies investigating accuracy of LUS for diagnosis of heart failure. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The statistical analysis for pooling the results of diagnostic performance parameters was conducted using Stata and Meta-DiSc softwares.
Results: Thirty-eight included studies in this meta-analysis were published between 2006 and 2024, encompassing a total of 6,783 patients. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies with respect to sensitivity (I2=92.51 and P<0.01) and specificity (I2=93.79 and P<0.01). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LUS for detection of heart failure were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.93), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), respectively. In addition, pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 7.87 (95% CI, 5.60-11.07), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.10-0.19), and 70.74 (95% CI, 41.98-119.21), respectively.
Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that LUS is a highly practical imaging for diagnosing acute heart failure, with excellent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. It is particularly valuable for excluding the heart failure when the result is negative. However, the influence of outlier and influential studies warrants caution, and future studies should aim to further validate these findings in diverse clinical contexts.