Dataset Information

The diagnostic performance of musculoskeletal ultrasound in gout: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Musculoskeletal ultrasound is widely used in diagnosing gout, but its accuracy is debatable. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the value of ultrasound in the diagnosis of gout. METHODS:We systematically searched for publications using Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline and Embase and manually screened the references of eligible articles for additional relevant publications. Studies were included in this systematic review if they assessed the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in gout compared to that of the gold standard, demonstration of monosodium urate crystals in joint fluid or tophi. We then conducted quantitative analyses by extracting data from each study and calculating the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curves (sROCs) were constructed to obtain the Q*-index and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS:Thirteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The diagnostic performances of three distinctive ultrasonographic features of gout, double contour sign (DCS), the presence of tophi and the snowstorm sign, were evaluated. For person-based evaluations, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, AUC and Q* were as follows: for the DCS, 66% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62%-69%), 92% (95% CI 90%-94%), 25.91 (95% CI 11.80-56.89), 0.8163 and 0.7503, respectively; for the presence of tophi, 56% (95% CI 52%-60%), 94% (95% CI 92%-96%), 21.11 (95% CI 7.84-56.89), 0.8928 and 0.8236, respectively; for the snowstorm sign, 31% (95% CI 27%-36%), 91% (95% CI 88%-93%), 4.54(95% CI 3.13-6.58), 0.5946 and 0.5712, respectively; and for simultaneous consideration of these ultrasonographic features, 80% (95% CI 76%-83%), 83% (95% CI 79%-86%), 19.03 (95% CI 13.97-25.93), 0.889 and 0.8197, respectively. For the joint-/location-based evaluations, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, AUC and Q* were as follows: for the DCS, 75% (95% CI 68%-80%), 65% (95% CI 59%-70%), 16.90 (95% CI 5.10-56.03), 0.871 and 0.8014, respectively; and for the presence of tophi, 48% (95% CI 40%-57%), 96% (95% CI 91%-99%), 30.20 (95% CI 9.23-98.87), 0.8776 and 0.8081, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In this meta-analysis, relatively high specificity but modest or low sensitivity were demonstrated in the diagnosis of gout using each of the three ultrasonographic features for person-based evaluations. Simultaneous consideration of these ultrasound findings may improve the diagnostic sensitivity. However, the double contour sign alone is weak in the differentiation of gout and non-gout for joint-/location-based evaluations. Further well-designed studies are still needed to support the current findings.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6034830 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The diagnostic performance of musculoskeletal ultrasound in gout: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang Qingyu Q Gao Fuqiang F Sun Wei W Ma Jinhui J Cheng Liming L Li Zirong Z

PloS one 20180706 7

<h4>Background</h4>Musculoskeletal ultrasound is widely used in diagnosing gout, but its accuracy is debatable. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the value of ultrasound in the diagnosis of gout.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched for publications using Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline and Embase and manually screened the references of eligible articles for additional relevant publications. Studies were included in this systematic review if they ...[more]

PMID: 29979706

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn updated overview of ultrasound (US) for diagnosis of acute cholecystitis (AC) remains lacking. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of US for AC.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We meticulously screened articles from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, spanning from inception to August 2023. We employed the search strategy combining the keywords "bedside US", "emergency US" or "point-of-care US" with "AC". Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles to identify suitable studies. The inclusion criteria encompassed articles investigating the diagnostic performance of US for AC. Data regarding diagnostic performance, sonographers, and sonographic findings including the presence of gallstone, gallbladder (GB) wall thickness, peri-GB fluid, or sonographic Murphy sign were extracted, and a meta-analysis was executed. Case reports, editorials, and review articles were excluded, as well as studies focused on acalculous cholecystitis. The study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.ResultsForty studies with 8,652 patients were included. The majority of studies had a low risk of bias and applicability concerns. US had a pooled sensitivity of 71% (95% CI, 69-72%), a specificity of 85% (95% CI, 84-86%), and an accuracy of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.82-0.83) for the diagnosis of AC. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 71% (95% CI, 67-74%) and 92% (95% CI, 90-93%) performed by emergency physicians (EPs), 79% (95% CI, 71-85%) and 76% (95% CI, 69-81%) performed by surgeons, and 68% (95% CI 66-71%) and 87% (95% CI, 86-88%) performed by radiologists, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups.ConclusionUS is a good imaging modality for the diagnosis of AC. EP-performed US has a similar diagnostic performance to radiologist-performed US. Further investigations would be needed to investigate the impact of US on expediting the management process and improving patient-centered outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically analyze the accuracy of ultrasonic techniques in assessing the nature of gastric contents and their volume.MethodsEnglish-language articles that used ultrasonic techniques to assess the nature of gastric contents and their volume in patients were selected. In eligible studies, data were recalculated and analyzed for forest plots and subject summary curves of operating characteristics (SROC). Study quality was assessed using the diagnostic accuracy study quality assessment tool QUADAS-2. Publication bias was tested using funnel plots.ResultsNine articles with a total of 523 study subjects were identified for this review. All studies were feasibility studies. The sensitivity of ultrasound assessment of gastric contents ranged from 53 to 100% and the specificity from 48 to 99%. The combined analysis yielded an area under the working characteristic curve for subjects of 97% (95% confidence interval (CI), 95-98%), a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 84-99%), and a specificity of 88% (95% CI, 72-95%). There was a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies due to inter-operator differences and small sample sizes.ConclusionUltrasound techniques have high diagnostic accuracy in assessing the nature of gastric contents and their volume in patients. However, most of the studies were feasibility studies with small sample sizes, lacked standardization, and had high risk of bias. More studies are needed in the future to investigate the diagnostic performance of gastric ultrasound assessment techniques.Critical relevance statementUltrasonography can be used to assess gastric contents, but standardized data integration and reporting are needed to account for the diagnostic capabilities of this technology.Key points• Ultrasound is a safe and feasible tool for assessing gastric contents. • Ultrasound has good diagnostic performance for gastric contents. • There is still a certain heterogeneity within our analysis process; more research is needed in the future to improve our results.

Project description:BackgroundUltrasound is considered a reliable, widely available, non-invasive and inexpensive imaging technique for assessing soft tissue involvement in Lateral epicondylalgia. Despite the number of diagnostic studies for Lateral Epicondylalgia, there is no consensus in the current literature on the best abnormal ultrasound findings that confirm lateral epicondylalgia.MethodsEligible studies identified by searching electronic databases, scanning reference lists of articles and chapters on ultrasound in reference books, and consultation of experts in sonography. Three reviewers (VCDIII, KP, KW) independently searched the databases using the agreed search strategy, and independently conducted all stages of article selection. Two reviewers (VCDIII, KP) then screened titles and abstracts to remove obvious irrelevance. Potentially relevant full text publications which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed by the primary investigator (VCDIII) and another reviewer (CGS).ResultsAmong the 15 included diagnostic studies in this review, seven were Level II diagnostic accuracy studies for chronic lateral epicondylalgia based on the National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence. Based from the pooled sensitivity of abnormal ultrasound findings with homogenous results (p > 0.05), the hypoechogenicity of the common extensor origin has the best combination of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. It is moderately sensitive [Sensitivity: 0.64 (0.56-0.72)] and highly specific [Specificity: 0.82 (0.72-0.90)] in determining elbows with lateral epicondylalgia. Additionally, bone changes on the lateral epicondyle [Sensitivity: 0.56 (0.50-0.62)] were moderately sensitive to chronic LE. Conversely, neovascularity [Specificity: 1.00 (0.97-1.00)], calcifications [Specificity: 0.97 (0.94-0.99)] and cortical irregularities [Specificity: 0.96 (0.88-0.99)] have strong specificity for chronic lateral epicondylalgia. There is insufficient evidence supporting the use of Power Doppler Ultrasonogrophy, Real-time Sonoelastography and sonographic probe-induced tenderness in diagnosing LE.ConclusionsThe use of Gray-scale Ultrasonography is recommended in objectively diagnosing lateral epicondylalgia. The presence of hypoechogenicity and bone changes indicates presence of a stressed common extensor origin-lateral epicondyle complex in elbows with lateral epicondylalgia. In addition to diagnosis, detection of these abnormal ultrasound findings allows localization of pathologies to tendon or bone that would assist in designing an appropriate treatment suited to patient's condition.

Project description:Muscle ultrasound is an emerging tool for diagnosing sarcopenia. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. We collected data from Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Diagnostic test accuracy studies using muscle ultrasound to detect sarcopenia were included. Bivariate random-effects models based on sensitivity and specificity pairs were used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curves (AUCs) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), if possible. We screened 7332 publications and included 17 studies with 2143 participants (mean age range: 52.6-82.8 years). All included studies had a high risk of bias. The study populations, reference standards and ultrasound measurement methods varied across the studies. Lower extremity muscles were commonly studied, whereas muscle thickness (MT) was the most widely measured parameter, followed by the cross-sectional area (CSA). The MTs of the gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, soleus, rectus abdominis and geniohyoid muscles showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia (SROC-AUC 0.83, 8 studies; SROC-AUC 0.78, 5 studies; AUC 0.82, 1 study; AUC 0.76-0.78, 2 studies; AUC 0.76, 1 study; and AUC 0.79, 1 study, respectively), whereas the MTs of vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and transversus abdominis muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.67-0.71, 3 studies; SROC-AUC 0.64, 4 studies; and AUC 0.68, 1 study, respectively). The CSA of rectus femoris, biceps brachii muscles and gastrocnemius fascicle length also showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.70-0.90, 3 studies; 0.81, 1 study; and 0.78-0.80, 1 study, respectively), whereas the echo intensity (EI) of rectus femoris, vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and biceps brachii muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.52-0.67, 2 studies; 0.48-0.50, 1 study; 0.43-0.49, 1 study; and 0.69, 1 study, respectively). The combination of CSA and EI of biceps brachii or rectus femoris muscles was better than either CSA or EI alone for diagnosing sarcopenia. Muscle ultrasound shows a low-to-moderate diagnostic test accuracy for sarcopenia diagnosis depending on different ultrasound parameters, measured muscles, reference standards and study populations. The combination of muscle quality indicators (e.g., EI) and muscle quantity indicators (e.g., MT) might provide better diagnostic test accuracy.

Dataset Information

The diagnostic performance of musculoskeletal ultrasound in gout: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

The diagnostic performance of musculoskeletal ultrasound in gout: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets