The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for CT-detected radiographic consolidation in hospitalised adults with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review

Mark Hew; John P Corcoran; Elinor K Harriss; Najib M Rahman; Susan Mallett; Susan Mallett

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007838

The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for CT-detected radiographic consolidation in hospitalised adults with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review

Mark Hew, John P Corcoran, Elinor K Harriss, Najib M Rahman, Susan Mallett, Susan Mallett

Applied Health Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) Summarise chest ultrasound accuracy to diagnose radiological consolidation, referenced to chest CT in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). (2) Directly compared ultrasound with chest X-ray.

SETTING: Hospitalised patients.

PARTICIPANTS: Studies were eligible if adult participants in respiratory failure underwent chest ultrasound to diagnose consolidation referenced to CT. Exclusion: (1) not primary study, (2) not respiratory failure, (3) not chest ultrasound, (4) not consolidation, (5) translation unobtainable, (6) unable to extract data, (7) unable to obtain paper. 4 studies comprising 224 participants met inclusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES: As planned, paired forest plots display 95% CIs of sensitivity and specificity for ultrasound and chest X-ray. Sensitivity and specificity from each study are plotted in receiver operator characteristics space. Meta-analysis was planned if studies were sufficiently homogeneous and numerous (≥4). Although this numerical requirement was met, meta-analysis was prevented by heterogeneous units of analysis between studies.

RESULTS: All studies were in intensive care, with either a high risk of selection bias or high applicability concerns. Studies had unclear or high risk of bias related to use of ultrasound. Only 1 study clearly performed ultrasound within 24 h of respiratory failure diagnosis. Ultrasound sensitivity ranged from 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). Specificity ranged from 0.78 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.94) to 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00). In two studies, chest X-ray had lower sensitivity than ultrasound, but there were insufficient patients to compare specificity.

CONCLUSIONS: Four small studies suggest ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific for consolidation in ARF, but high risk of bias and concerns about applicability in all studies may have inflated diagnostic accuracy. Further robustly designed studies are needed to define the role of ultrasound in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42013006472).

Original language	English
Article number	e007838
Journal	BMJ open
Volume	5
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007838
Publication status	Published - 19 May 2015

Bibliographical note

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007838Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

Cite this

@article{65436741c4984b44ad9f7a70d2e98a9a,

title = "The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for CT-detected radiographic consolidation in hospitalised adults with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review",

abstract = "OBJECTIVES: (1) Summarise chest ultrasound accuracy to diagnose radiological consolidation, referenced to chest CT in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). (2) Directly compared ultrasound with chest X-ray.SETTING: Hospitalised patients.PARTICIPANTS: Studies were eligible if adult participants in respiratory failure underwent chest ultrasound to diagnose consolidation referenced to CT. Exclusion: (1) not primary study, (2) not respiratory failure, (3) not chest ultrasound, (4) not consolidation, (5) translation unobtainable, (6) unable to extract data, (7) unable to obtain paper. 4 studies comprising 224 participants met inclusion.OUTCOME MEASURES: As planned, paired forest plots display 95% CIs of sensitivity and specificity for ultrasound and chest X-ray. Sensitivity and specificity from each study are plotted in receiver operator characteristics space. Meta-analysis was planned if studies were sufficiently homogeneous and numerous (≥4). Although this numerical requirement was met, meta-analysis was prevented by heterogeneous units of analysis between studies.RESULTS: All studies were in intensive care, with either a high risk of selection bias or high applicability concerns. Studies had unclear or high risk of bias related to use of ultrasound. Only 1 study clearly performed ultrasound within 24 h of respiratory failure diagnosis. Ultrasound sensitivity ranged from 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). Specificity ranged from 0.78 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.94) to 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00). In two studies, chest X-ray had lower sensitivity than ultrasound, but there were insufficient patients to compare specificity.CONCLUSIONS: Four small studies suggest ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific for consolidation in ARF, but high risk of bias and concerns about applicability in all studies may have inflated diagnostic accuracy. Further robustly designed studies are needed to define the role of ultrasound in this setting.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42013006472).",

author = "Mark Hew and Corcoran, {John P} and Harriss, {Elinor K} and Rahman, {Najib M} and Susan Mallett and Susan Mallett",

note = "Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.",

year = "2015",

month = may,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007838",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

journal = "BMJ open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for CT-detected radiographic consolidation in hospitalised adults with acute respiratory failure

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Hew, Mark

AU - Corcoran, John P

AU - Harriss, Elinor K

AU - Rahman, Najib M

AU - Mallett, Susan

N1 - Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

PY - 2015/5/19

Y1 - 2015/5/19

N2 - OBJECTIVES: (1) Summarise chest ultrasound accuracy to diagnose radiological consolidation, referenced to chest CT in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). (2) Directly compared ultrasound with chest X-ray.SETTING: Hospitalised patients.PARTICIPANTS: Studies were eligible if adult participants in respiratory failure underwent chest ultrasound to diagnose consolidation referenced to CT. Exclusion: (1) not primary study, (2) not respiratory failure, (3) not chest ultrasound, (4) not consolidation, (5) translation unobtainable, (6) unable to extract data, (7) unable to obtain paper. 4 studies comprising 224 participants met inclusion.OUTCOME MEASURES: As planned, paired forest plots display 95% CIs of sensitivity and specificity for ultrasound and chest X-ray. Sensitivity and specificity from each study are plotted in receiver operator characteristics space. Meta-analysis was planned if studies were sufficiently homogeneous and numerous (≥4). Although this numerical requirement was met, meta-analysis was prevented by heterogeneous units of analysis between studies.RESULTS: All studies were in intensive care, with either a high risk of selection bias or high applicability concerns. Studies had unclear or high risk of bias related to use of ultrasound. Only 1 study clearly performed ultrasound within 24 h of respiratory failure diagnosis. Ultrasound sensitivity ranged from 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). Specificity ranged from 0.78 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.94) to 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00). In two studies, chest X-ray had lower sensitivity than ultrasound, but there were insufficient patients to compare specificity.CONCLUSIONS: Four small studies suggest ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific for consolidation in ARF, but high risk of bias and concerns about applicability in all studies may have inflated diagnostic accuracy. Further robustly designed studies are needed to define the role of ultrasound in this setting.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42013006472).

AB - OBJECTIVES: (1) Summarise chest ultrasound accuracy to diagnose radiological consolidation, referenced to chest CT in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). (2) Directly compared ultrasound with chest X-ray.SETTING: Hospitalised patients.PARTICIPANTS: Studies were eligible if adult participants in respiratory failure underwent chest ultrasound to diagnose consolidation referenced to CT. Exclusion: (1) not primary study, (2) not respiratory failure, (3) not chest ultrasound, (4) not consolidation, (5) translation unobtainable, (6) unable to extract data, (7) unable to obtain paper. 4 studies comprising 224 participants met inclusion.OUTCOME MEASURES: As planned, paired forest plots display 95% CIs of sensitivity and specificity for ultrasound and chest X-ray. Sensitivity and specificity from each study are plotted in receiver operator characteristics space. Meta-analysis was planned if studies were sufficiently homogeneous and numerous (≥4). Although this numerical requirement was met, meta-analysis was prevented by heterogeneous units of analysis between studies.RESULTS: All studies were in intensive care, with either a high risk of selection bias or high applicability concerns. Studies had unclear or high risk of bias related to use of ultrasound. Only 1 study clearly performed ultrasound within 24 h of respiratory failure diagnosis. Ultrasound sensitivity ranged from 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). Specificity ranged from 0.78 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.94) to 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00). In two studies, chest X-ray had lower sensitivity than ultrasound, but there were insufficient patients to compare specificity.CONCLUSIONS: Four small studies suggest ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific for consolidation in ARF, but high risk of bias and concerns about applicability in all studies may have inflated diagnostic accuracy. Further robustly designed studies are needed to define the role of ultrasound in this setting.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42013006472).

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007838

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007838

M3 - Article

C2 - 25991460

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 5

JO - BMJ open

JF - BMJ open

IS - 5

M1 - e007838

ER -

The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for CT-detected radiographic consolidation in hospitalised adults with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this