We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and radiology-performed ultrasound for intussusception: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2019 September
OBJECTIVE: It is unclear whether point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) by emergency medicine physicians is as accurate as radiology-performed ultrasound (RADUS). We aim to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for intussusception and to compare the performance between POCUS and RADUS.
METHODS: Databases were searched from inception through February 2018 using pre-defined index terms. Peer-reviewed primary studies that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for intussusception in children were included. The study is reported using Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA). Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for intussusception was conducted using the random-effects bivariate model. Subgroup analysis (POCUS vs RADUS) was also performed. Meta-regression was utilized to determine if the diagnostic accuracy between POCUS and RADUS was significantly different.
RESULTS: Thirty studies (n = 5249) were included in the meta-analysis. Ultrasonography for intussusception has a sensitivity: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98), specificity: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99), positive likelihood ratio: 43.8 (95% CI: 18.0-106.7) and negative likelihood ratio: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.04), with an area under ROC (AUROC) curve of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Meta-regression suggested no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy for intussusception between POCUS and RADUS (AUROC: 0.95 vs 1.00, p = 0.128).
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggested POCUS has a high diagnostic accuracy for intussusception not significantly different from that of RADUS.
METHODS: Databases were searched from inception through February 2018 using pre-defined index terms. Peer-reviewed primary studies that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for intussusception in children were included. The study is reported using Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA). Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for intussusception was conducted using the random-effects bivariate model. Subgroup analysis (POCUS vs RADUS) was also performed. Meta-regression was utilized to determine if the diagnostic accuracy between POCUS and RADUS was significantly different.
RESULTS: Thirty studies (n = 5249) were included in the meta-analysis. Ultrasonography for intussusception has a sensitivity: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98), specificity: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99), positive likelihood ratio: 43.8 (95% CI: 18.0-106.7) and negative likelihood ratio: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.04), with an area under ROC (AUROC) curve of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Meta-regression suggested no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy for intussusception between POCUS and RADUS (AUROC: 0.95 vs 1.00, p = 0.128).
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggested POCUS has a high diagnostic accuracy for intussusception not significantly different from that of RADUS.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2023 July
ASA Consensus-based Guidance on Preoperative Management of Patients on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Anesthesiology 2023 November 21
Common postbariatric surgery emergencies for the acute care surgeon: What you need to know.Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2023 December 2
Sodium bicarbonate Ringer's solution for hemorrhagic shock: A meta-analysis comparing crystalloid solutions.American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2023 November 6
Association between postinduction hypotension and postoperative mortality: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2023 November 22
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app