首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and radiology-performed ultrasound for intussusception: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors:Po-Yang Tsou  Yu-Hsun Wang  Yu-Kun Ma  Julia K. Deanehan  Jason Gillon  Eric H. Chou  Tzu-Chun Hsu  Yuan-Chun Huang  Judy Lin  Chien-Chang Lee
Affiliation:1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA;2. Department of Pediatrics, Driscoll Children''s Hospital, Corpus Christi, TX, USA;3. Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA;5. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin School of Medicine, Austin, TX, USA;6. Department of Emergency Medicine, John Peter Smith Hospital, Fort Worth, TX, USA;7. Department of Medical Imaging, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan;8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA
Abstract:ObjectiveIt 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.MethodsDatabases 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.ResultsThirty 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).ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggested POCUS has a high diagnostic accuracy for intussusception not significantly different from that of RADUS.
Keywords:Corresponding author at: Health Economics and Outcome Research Group, Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung Shan S. Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City 100, Taiwan.  POCUS  point-of-care ultrasound  RADUS  radiology-performed ultrasound  Intussusception  Point-of-care ultrasound  Diagnostic accuracy  Meta-analysis
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号