Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2004
Methodological analysis of diagnostic dobutamine stress echocardiography studies.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Krenning Boudewijn J, Geleijnse Marcel L, Poldermans Don, Roelandt Jos R T C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is an accepted test for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD), despite its wide diagnostic accuracy.
AIM: Which factors cause test variability of DSE for the diagnosis of CAD.
METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 46 studies in 5,353 patients, the potential causes of diagnostic variability were systematically analyzed, including patient selection, definition of CAD, chest pain characteristics, confounding factors for DSE (left ventricular hypertrophy, left bundle branch block, female gender), work-up bias (present when patient's chance to undergo coronary angiography is influenced by the result of DSE), review bias (present when DSE is interpreted in relation to CAG), DSE protocol and definition of a positive DSE.
RESULTS: Diagnostic variability was related to definition of a positive test, but not related to the definition of CAD or DSE protocol. However, only three of eight methodological standards for research design found general compliance. Differences in the selection of the study population (quality of echocardiographic window, angina pectoris), handling of confounding factors and analysis of disease in individual coronary arteries were observed. Lack of data on analysis of relevant chest pain syndromes and handling of nondiagnostic test results hampered further evaluation of these standards.
CONCLUSION: Methodological problems may explain the wide range in diagnostic variability of DSE. An improvement of clinical relevance of DSE testing is possible by stronger adherence to common and new methodological standards.
AIM: Which factors cause test variability of DSE for the diagnosis of CAD.
METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 46 studies in 5,353 patients, the potential causes of diagnostic variability were systematically analyzed, including patient selection, definition of CAD, chest pain characteristics, confounding factors for DSE (left ventricular hypertrophy, left bundle branch block, female gender), work-up bias (present when patient's chance to undergo coronary angiography is influenced by the result of DSE), review bias (present when DSE is interpreted in relation to CAG), DSE protocol and definition of a positive DSE.
RESULTS: Diagnostic variability was related to definition of a positive test, but not related to the definition of CAD or DSE protocol. However, only three of eight methodological standards for research design found general compliance. Differences in the selection of the study population (quality of echocardiographic window, angina pectoris), handling of confounding factors and analysis of disease in individual coronary arteries were observed. Lack of data on analysis of relevant chest pain syndromes and handling of nondiagnostic test results hampered further evaluation of these standards.
CONCLUSION: Methodological problems may explain the wide range in diagnostic variability of DSE. An improvement of clinical relevance of DSE testing is possible by stronger adherence to common and new methodological standards.