The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2021
A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Manzano-Nunez Ramiro, Gomez Alexandra, Espitia David, Sierra-Ruiz Melibea, Gonzalez Jessica, Rodriguez-Narvaez Jose G, Castillo Andrea C, Gonzalez Alejandro, Orjuela Jose, Orozco-Martin Viviana, Bernal Felipe, Giron Felipe, Rios Angela C, Carranza Paola, Gonzalez-Hadad Adolfo, García-Perdomo Herney A, García Alberto F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) to determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound (US) compared with a pericardial window (PW) for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma.
METHODS: A literature search in five databases identified relevant articles for inclusion in this SR and MA. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chest US, compared with a PW, for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with penetrating thoracic trauma. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for final analysis. Methodological quality was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We performed a MA of binary diagnostic test accuracy within the bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling framework.
RESULTS: We included five studies in our SR and MA. These studies included a total of 556 trauma patients. The MA found that, compared with PW, the US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. The presence of a concomitant left hemothorax was frequent in patients with false-negative results.
CONCLUSION: This SR and MA found that, compared with PW, US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. Caution interpretation of pericardial US results is suggested in the presence of left hemothorax. In these cases, a second diagnostic test should be performed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, level II.
METHODS: A literature search in five databases identified relevant articles for inclusion in this SR and MA. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chest US, compared with a PW, for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with penetrating thoracic trauma. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for final analysis. Methodological quality was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We performed a MA of binary diagnostic test accuracy within the bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling framework.
RESULTS: We included five studies in our SR and MA. These studies included a total of 556 trauma patients. The MA found that, compared with PW, the US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. The presence of a concomitant left hemothorax was frequent in patients with false-negative results.
CONCLUSION: This SR and MA found that, compared with PW, US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. Caution interpretation of pericardial US results is suggested in the presence of left hemothorax. In these cases, a second diagnostic test should be performed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, level II.