Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2014
Misdiagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Azhar Bilal, Patel Shaneel R, Holt Peter J E, Hinchliffe Robert J, Thompson Matt M, Karthikesalingam Alan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To quantitatively summarize the incidence of misdiagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA), the most common presenting features, and the commonest incorrect differential diagnoses.
METHODS: A systematic search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases to identify studies reporting the initial rate of misdiagnosis of patients with rAAA. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the rate of misdiagnosis, presenting features, and commonest differential diagnoses. A sensitivity analysis was performed for studies reporting after 1990.
RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 1109 patients contributed to the pooled analysis, which found a 42% incidence of rAAA misdiagnosis (95% CI 29% to 55%). In studies reporting after 1990, misdiagnosis was seen in 32% (95% CI 16% to 49%). The most common erroneous differential diagnoses were ureteric colic and myocardial infarction. Abdominal pain, shock, and a pulsatile mass were presenting features in 61% (49%-72%), 46% (32%-61%), and 45% (29%-62%) of rAAAs, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The rate of misdiagnosis of rAAA has remained consistent over time and is concerning. There is a need for an effective clinical decision tool to enable accurate diagnosis and triage at the scene of the emergency.
METHODS: A systematic search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases to identify studies reporting the initial rate of misdiagnosis of patients with rAAA. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the rate of misdiagnosis, presenting features, and commonest differential diagnoses. A sensitivity analysis was performed for studies reporting after 1990.
RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 1109 patients contributed to the pooled analysis, which found a 42% incidence of rAAA misdiagnosis (95% CI 29% to 55%). In studies reporting after 1990, misdiagnosis was seen in 32% (95% CI 16% to 49%). The most common erroneous differential diagnoses were ureteric colic and myocardial infarction. Abdominal pain, shock, and a pulsatile mass were presenting features in 61% (49%-72%), 46% (32%-61%), and 45% (29%-62%) of rAAAs, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The rate of misdiagnosis of rAAA has remained consistent over time and is concerning. There is a need for an effective clinical decision tool to enable accurate diagnosis and triage at the scene of the emergency.