Dataset Information

Diagnostic utility of CT for abdominal injury in the military setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is critical to accurately identify patients with abdominal injury who truly need to undergo laparotomy during the war in timely fashion. The diagnostic utility of computed tomography (CT) for evaluating abdominal injury in the military setting remains uncertain.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Meta-analyses were performed by using a random-effect model. We pooled the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves with standard errors, the Q indexes with standard errors, the sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the specificities with 95% CIs, the positive likelihood ratios with 95% CIs, the negative likelihood ratios with 95% CIs, and the diagnostic odds ratios with 95% CIs. The heterogeneity among studies were evaluated by the I2 and P value.

Results

Overall, 5 retrospective studies were included. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9761 ± 0.0215 and the Q index was 0.9302 ± 0.0378. The pooled sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.92-0.99) without a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0%, P = .4538). The pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.93-0.97) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 90.6%, P < .0001). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 10.71 (95% CI: 2.91-39.43) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 89.2%, P < .0001). The pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.07 (95% CI = 0.02-0.27) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 57.5%, P = .0516). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 177.48 (95% CI = 18.09-1741.31) with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 75.9%, P = .0023).

Conclusion

Diagnostic accuracy of CT for abdominal injury is excellent in the military setting. Further work should explore how to shrink CT equipment for a wider use in wartime.

SUBMITTER: Bai Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8677980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposePolymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) can be difficult to diagnose. Whole-body [18F]FDG-PET/CT allows for a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant articular and extra-articular structures affected by PMR. We aimed to summarize current evidence on the diagnostic value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT for a diagnosis of PMR.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library database were searched from inception through May 31, 2020. Studies containing patients with PMR who underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT were included. Screening and full-text review were performed by 3 investigators and data extraction by 2 investigators. Risk of bias was examined with the QUADAS-2 tool. Diagnostic test meta-analysis was performed with a bivariate model.ResultsTwenty studies were included in the systematic review, of which 9 studies (n = 636 patients) were eligible for meta-analysis. [18F]FDG positivity at the following sites was associated with a diagnosis of PMR: interspinous bursae (positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 4.00; 95% CI 1.84-8.71), hips (LR+ 2.91; 95% CI 2.09-4.05), ischial tuberosities (LR+ 2.86; 95% CI 1.91-4.28), shoulders (LR+ 2.57; 95% CI 1.24-5.32) and sternoclavicular joints (LR+ 2.31; 95% CI 1.33-4.02). Negative likelihood ratios (LR-) for these sites, as well as the greater trochanters, were all less than 0.50. Composite [18F]FDG-PET/CT scores, as reported in 3 studies, provided a pooled LR+ of 3.91 (95% CI 2.42-6.32) and LR- of 0.19 (95% CI 0.10-0.36). Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed across the studies, mainly due to differences in patient selection, scanning procedures and/or interpretation criteria.ConclusionSignificant [18F]FDG uptake at a combination of anatomic sites is informative for a diagnosis of PMR. [18F]FDG-PET/CT might be an important diagnostic tool in patients with suspected PMR. This study also highlights the need for adherence to published procedural recommendations and standardized interpretation criteria for the use of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in PMR.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of serum natriuretic peptide levels (B type natriuretic peptide, N terminal probrain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP), and mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MRproANP)) in people presenting with acute heart failure to acute care settings using thresholds recommended in the 2012 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for heart failure.DesignSystematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, database of abstracts of reviews of effects, NHS economic evaluation database, and Health Technology Assessment up to 28 January 2014, using combinations of subject headings and terms relating to heart failure and natriuretic peptides.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible studies evaluated one or more natriuretic peptides (B type natriuretic peptide, NTproBNP, or MRproANP) in the diagnosis of acute heart failure against an acceptable reference standard in consecutive or randomly selected adults in an acute care setting. Studies were excluded if they did not present sufficient data to extract or calculate true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives, or report age independent natriuretic peptide thresholds. Studies not available in English were also excluded.Results37 unique study cohorts described in 42 study reports were included, with a total of 48 test evaluations reporting 15 263 test results. At the lower recommended thresholds of 100 ng/L for B type natriuretic peptide and 300 ng/L for NTproBNP, the natriuretic peptides have sensitivities of 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 0.96) and 0.99 (0.97 to 1.00) and negative predictive values of 0.94 (0.90 to 0.96) and 0.98 (0.89 to 1.0), respectively, for a diagnosis of acute heart failure. At the lower recommended threshold of 120 pmol/L, MRproANP has a sensitivity ranging from 0.95 (range 0.90-0.98) to 0.97 (0.95-0.98) and a negative predictive value ranging from 0.90 (0.80-0.96) to 0.97 (0.96-0.98). At higher thresholds the sensitivity declined progressively and specificity remained variable across the range of values. There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between plasma B type natriuretic peptide and NTproBNP.ConclusionsAt the rule-out thresholds recommended in the 2012 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for heart failure, plasma B type natriuretic peptide, NTproBNP, and MRproANP have excellent ability to exclude acute heart failure. Specificity is variable, and so imaging to confirm a diagnosis of heart failure is required. There is no statistical difference between the diagnostic accuracy of plasma B type natriuretic peptide and NTproBNP. Introduction of natriuretic peptide measurement in the investigation of patients with suspected acute heart failure has the potential to allow rapid and accurate exclusion of the diagnosis.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis.Materials and methodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies.ResultsTwenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ConclusionUse of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

Project description:PurposeMonitoring disease activity in patients with large vessel vasculitis (LVV) can be challenging. [18F]FDG-PET/CT is increasingly used to evaluate treatment response in LVV. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to summarize the current evidence on the value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT for treatment monitoring in LVV.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane library database were searched from inception through October 21, 2020. Studies containing patients with LVV (i.e. giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis and isolated aortitis) that received treatment and underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT were included. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were performed by 2 investigators. The risk of bias was examined with the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis of proportions and diagnostic test accuracy was performed by a random-effects model and bivariate model, respectively.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in the systematic review, of which 8 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Arterial [18F]FDG uptake decreased upon clinical remission in longitudinal studies. High heterogeneity (I2 statistic 94%) precluded meta-analysis of the proportion of patients in which the scan normalized during clinical remission. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies indicated that [18F]FDG-PET/CT may detect relapsing/refractory disease with a sensitivity of 77% (95%CI 57-90%) and specificity of 71% (95%CI 47-87%). Substantial heterogeneity was observed among the cross-sectional studies. Both variation in clinical aspects and imaging procedures contributed to the heterogeneity.ConclusionTreatment of LVV leads to reduction of arterial [18F]FDG uptake during clinical remission. [18F]FDG-PET/CT has moderate diagnostic accuracy for detecting active LVV. [18F]FDG-PET/CT may aid treatment monitoring in LVV, but its findings should be interpreted in the context of the clinical suspicion of disease activity. This study underlines the relevance of published procedural recommendations for the use of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in LVV.