Dataset Information

Pleural ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: review of the literature and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ultrasonography is being increasingly utilized in acute care settings with expanding applications. Pneumothorax evaluation by ultrasonography is a fast, safe, easy and inexpensive alternative to chest radiographs. In this review, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the current literature comparing ultrasonography and chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax.

Methods

We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library dealing with both ultrasonography and chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax. In eligible studies that met strict inclusion criteria, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pleural ultrasonography in comparison with chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax.

Results

We reviewed 601 articles and selected 25 original research articles for detailed review. Only 13 articles met all of our inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. One study used lung sliding sign alone, 12 studies used lung sliding and comet tail signs, and 6 studies searched for lung point in addition to the other two signs. Ultrasonography had a pooled sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI, 68.1 to 98.1) and a specificity of 98.4% (95% CI, 97.3 to 99.5). Chest radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 39.8% (95% CI, 29.4 to 50.3) and a specificity of 99.3% (95% CI, 98.4 to 100). Our meta-regression and subgroup analyses indicate that consecutive sampling of patients compared to convenience sampling provided higher sensitivity results for both ultrasonography and chest radiography. Consecutive versus nonconsecutive sampling and trauma versus nontrauma settings were significant sources of heterogeneity. In addition, subgroup analysis showed significant variations related to operator and type of probe used.

Conclusions

Our study indicates that ultrasonography is more accurate than chest radiography for detection of pneumothorax. The results support the previous investigations in this field, add new valuable information obtained from subgroup analysis, and provide accurate estimates for the performance parameters of both bedside ultrasonography and chest radiography for pneumothorax evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Alrajab S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4057340 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pleural ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Alrajab Saadah S Youssef Asser M AM Akkus Nuri I NI Caldito Gloria G

Critical care (London, England) 20130923 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Ultrasonography is being increasingly utilized in acute care settings with expanding applications. Pneumothorax evaluation by ultrasonography is a fast, safe, easy and inexpensive alternative to chest radiographs. In this review, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the current literature comparing ultrasonography and chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library dealing wit ...[more]

PMID: 24060427

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Differential diagnosis in early arthritis is challenging, especially early after symptom onset. Several studies applied musculoskeletal ultrasound in this setting, however, its role in helping diagnosis has yet to be clearly defined. The purpose of this work is to systematically assess the diagnostic applications of ultrasonography in early arthritis in order to summarize the available evidence and highlight possible gaps in knowledge. Methods: In December 2017, existing systematic literature reviews (SLR) on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), and gout were retrieved. Studies on ultrasound to diagnose the target conditions and detecting elementary lesions (such as synovitis, tenosynovitis, enthesitis, bone erosions, osteophytes) were extracted from the SLRs. The searches of the previous reviews were updated and data from new studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria extracted. Groups of reviewers worked separately for each disease, when possible diagnostic accuracy (sensitivities, specificities) was calculated from primary studies. When available, the reliability of ultrasound to detect elementary lesions was extracted. Results: For all the examined disease, recent SLRs were available. The new searches identified 27 eligible articles, with 87 articles included from the previous SLRs. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound in identifying diseases was addressed by 75 studies; in most of them, a single elementary lesion was used to define diagnosis, except for PMR. Only studies on RA included consecutive patients with new onset of arthritis, while studies on gout and CPPD often focused on subjects with mono-arthritis. Most of the remaining studies enrolled patients with a defined diagnosis. Synovitis was the most frequently detected lesion; clinical diagnosis was the most common reference standard. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound across different conditions was extremely variable. Ultrasound to identify elementary lesions was assessed in 38 studies in OA, gout and CPPD. Its performance in OA was very variable, with better results in CPPD and gout. The reliability of ultrasound was moderate to good for most lesions. Conclusions: Although a consistent amount of literature investigated the diagnostic application of ultrasound, in only a minority of cases its additional value over clinical diagnosis was tested. This SLR underlines the need for studies with a pragmatic design to identify the placement of ultrasound in the diagnostic pathway of new-onset arthritis.

Project description:Rib fractures are the most common skeletal thoracic injuries resulting from blunt chest trauma. Half of the rib fractures are not detected upon a precise physical evaluation and radiographs. Recently ultrasonography (USG) has been investigated to detect rib fractures. But based on literature the usefulness of USG varies widely. This study was conducted to investigate the role of USG in the detection of possible rib fractures in comparison with radiography.In this cross-sectional study, consecutive patients with minor blunt chest trauma and suspected rib fractures presenting in Imam Reza Hospital located in Mashhad-Iran, between April 2013 and October 2013 were assessed by USG and radiography. The radiography was performed in a posteroanterior (PA) chest projection and oblique rib view centered over the area of trauma. The time duration spent in taking USG and radiography were recorded. The prevalence and location of fractures revealed by USG and radiography were compared.Sixty-one suspected patients were assessed. The male to female ratio was 2.4:1 (43 men and 18 women) with a mean ± SD age of (44.3 ± 19.7) years. There were totally 59 rib fractures in 38 (62.3%) patients based on radiography and USG, while 23 (37.7%) patients had no diagnostic evidence of rib lesions. USG revealed 58 rib fractures in 33 (54.1%) of 61 suspected patients and radiographs revealed 32 rib fractures in 20 (32.8%) of 61 patients. A total of 58 (98.3%) rib fractures were detected by USG, whereas oblique rib view and PA chest radiography showed 27 (45.8%) and 24 (40.7%) rib fractures, respectively. The average duration of USG was (12 ± 3) min (range 7-17 min), whereas the duration of radiography was (27 ± 6) min (range 15-37 min). The kappa coefficient showed a low level of agreement between both USG and PA chest radiography (kappa coefficient = 0.28), and between USG and oblique rib view (kappa coefficient = 0.32).USG discloses more fractures than radiography in most patients presenting with suspected rib fractures. Moreover USG requires significantly less time than radiography.

Project description:ImportanceStandard tools used to diagnose pulmonary edema in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), including chest radiography (CXR), lack adequate sensitivity, which may delay appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Point-of-care lung ultrasonography (LUS) may be more accurate than CXR, but no meta-analysis of studies directly comparing the 2 tools was previously available.ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of LUS with the accuracy of CXR in the diagnosis of cardiogenic pulmonary edema in adult patients presenting with dyspnea.Data sourcesA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the gray literature was performed in May 2018. No language or year limits were applied.Study selectionStudy inclusion criteria were a prospective adult cohort of patients presenting to any clinical setting with dyspnea who underwent both LUS and CXR on initial assessment with imaging results compared with a reference standard ADHF diagnosis by a clinical expert after either a medical record review or a combination of echocardiography findings and brain-type natriuretic peptide criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion criteria, and disagreements were resolved with discussion.Data extraction and synthesisReporting adhered to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using a customized QUADAS-2 tool. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LUS and CXR were determined using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic approach.Main outcomes and measuresThe comparative accuracy of LUS and CXR in diagnosing ADHF as measured by the differences between the 2 modalities in pooled sensitivity and specificity.ResultsThe literature search yielded 1377 nonduplicate titles that were screened, of which 43 articles (3.1%) underwent full-text review. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 1827 patients. Pooled estimates for LUS were 0.88 (95% Cl, 0.75-0.95) for sensitivity and 0.90 (95% Cl, 0.88-0.92) for specificity. Pooled estimates for CXR were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.76) for sensitivity and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-0.97) for specificity. The relative sensitivity ratio of LUS, compared with CXR, was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.08-1.34; P < .001), but no difference was found in specificity between tests (relative specificity ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11; P = .96).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that LUS is more sensitive than CXR in detecting pulmonary edema in ADHF; LUS should be considered as an adjunct imaging modality in the evaluation of patients with dyspnea at risk of ADHF.

Dataset Information

Pleural ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pleural ultrasonography versus chest radiography for the diagnosis of pneumothorax: review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets