• Zentralbl Chir · Dec 2003

    Meta Analysis

    [Emergency ultrasound for blunt abdominal trauma--meta-analysis update 2003].

    • D Stengel, K Bauwens, F Porzsolt, G Rademacher, S Mutze, and A Ekkernkamp.
    • Klinische Epidemiologie, Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin. dirk.stengel@ukb.de
    • Zentralbl Chir. 2003 Dec 1;128(12):1027-37.

    AbstractEmergency ultrasound has established itself as a key procedure of primary diagnostic work-up for blunt abdominal and multiple trauma. However, in a systematic review published in 2001 ultrasonography turned out to provide an unexpectedly low sensitivity. We conducted an update of this analysis to investigate if test characteristics will be maintained including recent studies. Prospective trials published between January 1957 and January 2003 were identified using the Medline/Oldmedline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases. The searching strategy comprised a manual search as well as a search along the world-wide web. Qualitative rating was carried out by two investigators using criteria proposed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford. We investigated a composite endpoint (i. e., free fluid and/or organ laceration) as well as the single criteria organ injury and free intraabdominal fluid collections. After calculation of two-by-two-tables, Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics (SROC) and Q* values were determined together with their 95% confidence intervals. The Q* value was proposed as the point of intersection where sensitivity equals specificity. In addition, a random effects model was employed to compute common positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR). By assessing the title and/or abstract, 349 of 957 papers contained potentially valid information for the purpose of this review. A total of 67 studies were deemed eligible, nine of which had to be excluded from meta-analysis because of dual publication. This left 58 trials allocating 16,361 subjects for statistical analysis. Despite a trend towards improved study designs observed during the past decade, the included trials were of average methodological quality. Two-thirds of all investigations fulfilled two or less of the six possible quality criteria. The diagnostic reference standard was applied independently in only 40% of all protocols. With regard to the composite endpoint and the sonographic depiction of free fluid, the Q* value was estimated at 0.91, whereas Q* equaled 0.90 for the detection of organ injury. Q* values subsequently decreased with improving study quality and fell clearly below 0.80 in methodologically proper studies. Accounting for a negative LR of 0.23 (composite endpoint) and an assumed prevalence of 35% of intraabdominal injury, a post-test probability of 11% will remain in case of a negative sonogram. In pediatric trauma, ultrasound showed even worse test characteristics (negative LR = 0.43). Thus, in case of a 35% prevalence, the post-test probability has to estimated at 19%. Emergency ultrasound provides high specificity but insufficient sensitivity to reliably rule out intraabdominal injury.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.