Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for detecting pelvic fractures among blunt trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT: Background Pelvic fractures are common among blunt trauma patients, and timely and accurate diagnosis can improve patient outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether physical examinations are sufficient in this context. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of physical examination for pelvic fracture among blunt trauma patients. Methods Studies were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases starting from the creation of the database to January 2020. A total of 20 studies (49,043 patients with 8300 cases [16.9%] of pelvic fracture) were included in the quality assessment and meta-analysis. Two investigators extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias in each study. The meta-analysis involved a hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (ROC) model to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the physical exam. Subgroup analysis assessed the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve analysis. Results The median prevalence of pelvic fracture was 10.5% (interquartile range, 5.1–16.5). The pooled sensitivity (and corresponding 95% confidence interval) of the hierarchical summary ROC parameters was 0.859 (0.761–0.952) at a given specificity of 0.920, which was the median value among the included studies. Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity among patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ??13 was 0.933 (0.847–0.998) at a given specificity of 0.920. The corresponding value for patients with scores ??13 was 0.761 (0.560–0.932). For threshold probability

SUBMITTER: Okada Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7531119 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Delayed diagnoses of unstable thoracolumbar spine (TL-spine) fractures can result in neurologic deficits and avoidable pain, so it is important for clinicians to reach prompt diagnostic decisions. There are no validated decision aids for determining which trauma patients warrant TL-spine imaging. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the injury mechanism, physical examination, associated injuries, clinical decision aids, and imaging for evaluating blunt TL-spine trauma patients. METHODS:A search strategy for studies including adult blunt TL-spine trauma using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Excluded studies lacked data to construct 2 × 2 tables, were duplicates, were not primary research, did not focus on blunt trauma, examined associated injuries without any utility in identifying TL-spine injuries, only studied cervical-spine fractures, were non-English, had a pediatric setting, or were cadaver/autopsy reports. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Diagnostic predictors were analyzed with a meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS:In blunt trauma patients in the emergency department, the weighted pretest probability of a TL-spine fracture was 15%. The estimates for detection of TL-spine fractures with plain film were: positive likelihood ratio (+LR) = 25.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-152.2; I2 = 94%; p < 0.001) and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) = 0.43 (95% CI 0.32-0.59; I2 = 84%; p < 0.001), and for computed tomography (CT) were: +LR = 81.1 (95% CI 14.1-467.9; I2 = 87%; p < 0.001) and -LR = 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.08; I2 = 23%; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS:CT is more accurate than plain films for detecting TL-spine fractures. Injury mechanism, physical examination, and associated injuries alone are not accurate to rule-in or rule-out TL-spine fractures.

Project description:ObjectivesComputed tomography (CT), the reference standard for diagnosis of intraabdominal injury (IAI), carries risk including ionizing radiation. CT-sparing clinical decision rules for children have relied heavily on physical examination, but they did not include focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST), which has emerged into widespread use during the past decade. We sought to determine the independent associations of physical examination, laboratory studies, and FAST with identification of IAI in children and to compare the test characteristics of these diagnostic variables. We hypothesized that FAST may add incremental utility to a physical examination alone to more accurately identify children who could forgo CT scan.MethodsWe reviewed a large trauma database of all children with blunt torso trauma presenting to a freestanding pediatric emergency department during a 20-month period. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of FAST, physical examination, and selected laboratory data with IAI in children, and we compared the test characteristics of these variables.ResultsAmong 354 children, 50 (14%) had IAI. Positive FAST (odds ratio [OR] = 14.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.5 to 30.8) and positive physical examination (OR = 15.2, 95% CI = 7.7 to 31.7) were identified as independent predictors for IAI. Physical examination and FAST each had sensitivities of 74% (95% CI = 60% to 85%). Combining FAST and physical examination as FAST-enhanced physical examination (exFAST) improved sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) over either test alone (sensitivity = 88%, 95% CI = 76% to 96%) and NPV of 97.3% (95% CI = 94.5% to 98.7%).ConclusionsIn children, FAST and physical examinations each predicted the identification of IAI. However, the combination of the two (exFAST) had greater sensitivity and NPV than either physical examination or FAST alone. This supports the use of exFAST in refining clinical predication rules in children with blunt torso trauma.

Project description:ObjectivesControversies emerge over routine performances of whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) in patients with blunt polytrauma. The existing randomized and non-randomized evidence is inconclusive, and during observations of non-trauma, incidental findings, detected by WBCT, have left uncertainty regarding their consequences and optimal management. Additionally, previous meta-analyses have failed to address the limitations of primary studies and issues associated with incidental findings. Therefore, we planned a new systematic review to address these points.MethodsWe will search the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 31, 2020, with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include prospective and retrospective studies with a single-gate design that assessed diagnostic accuracy and/or yield of WBCT to detect traumatic injuries, and studies that assessed incidental findings detected by WBCT. Additionally, we will include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies that assessed the effectiveness of WBCT against conventional care, including selective computed tomography (CT). Studies of patients of all ages with blunt traumatic injuries, assessed at an emergency department, will be included. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity via standard quality assessment tools. The primary outcome of interest will be reduction in mortality. Our secondary outcomes will include diagnostic accuracy and yield, detection of incidental findings and clinical outcomes associated with these detections, and improvement in other non-mortality clinical outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient, and intervention characteristics and clinical outcomes. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to obtain summary estimates. Finally, we will assess the certainty of evidence by the grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable, as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Prospero registrationCRD42020187852.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for detecting pelvic fractures among blunt trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets