Search

Abstract Background The assessment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is clinically difficult diagnosis. The “gold standard test” for DVT diagnosis is venography; however, various point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) protocols have been suggested for DVT evaluation in the emergency department. Aims This review evaluated the role of different POCUS protocols in diagnosing DVT in the emergency department. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based of PRISMA guideline and registered on PROSEPRO (CRD42023398871). An electronic database search in Embase, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google scholar and a manual search were performed to identify eligible studies till February 2023. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. Quantitative analysis was carried out using STATA 16 and Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Sensitivity, specificity of POCUS protocols for DVT diagnosis compared to reference standard test was calculated. Results Heterogeneity was identified between 26 included studies for review. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the 2-point POCUS protocol were 92.32% (95% CI: 87.58–97.06), 96.86% (95% CI: 95.09–98.64), 88.41% (95% CI: 82.24–94.58) and 97.25% (95% CI: 95.51–98.99), respectively. Similarly, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for 3-point POCUS were 89.15% (95% CI: 83.24–95.07), 92.71% (95% CI: 89.59–95.83), 81.27% (95% CI: 73.79–88.75), and 95.47% (95% CI: 92.93–98). The data pooled for complete compression ultrasound, and whole-leg duplex ultrasound also resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 98.21–100) and 97.05% (95% CI: 92.25–100), respectively. On the other hand, the time from triage to DVT diagnosis was significantly shorter for emergency physician-performed POCUS than diagnostic tests performed by radiologists. Conclusion The diagnostic performance of POCUS protocols performed by emergency physicians was excellent. Combined with the significant reduction in time to diagnosis. POCUS can be used as the first-line imaging tool for DVT diagnosis in the emergency department. We also recommended that attending emergency physicians with POCUS training are present during DVT diagnosis to improve diagnostic performance even though high diagnostic performance is observed even with the minimum training.

Abstract Background Pleural effusion is a fluid buildup in the pleural space that mostly result from congestive heart failure, bacterial pneumonia, malignancy, and pulmonary embolism. The diagnosis of this condition can be challenging as it presents symptoms that may overlap with other conditions; therefore, imaging diagnostic tools such as chest x-ray/radiograph (CXR), point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), and computed tomography (CT) have been employed to make an accurate diagnosis. Although POCUS has high diagnostic accuracy, it is yet to be considered a first-line diagnostic tool as most physicians use radiography. Therefore, the current meta-analysis was designed to compare POCUS to chest radiography. Methods n extended search for studies related to our topic was done on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) was performed on all eligible articles obtained from the databases. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and CXR was performed using STATA 16 software. Results Our search yielded 1642 articles, of which only 18 were eligible for inclusion and analysis. The pooled analysis showed that POCUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR (94.54% (95% CI 91.74–97.34) vs. 67.68% (95% CI 58.29–77.08) and 97.88% (95% CI 95.77–99.99) vs. 85.30% (95% CI 80.06–90.54) sensitivity and specificity, respectively). A subgroup analysis based on the position of patients during examinations showed that POCUS carried out in supine and upright positions had higher specificity than other POCUS positions (99%). In comparison, lateral decubitus CXR had higher sensitivity (96%) and specificity (99%) than the other CXR positions. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that CXR had higher specificity in studies that included more than 100 patients (92.74% (95% CI 85.41–100). Moreover, CXR tends to have a higher diagnostic accuracy when other CXR positions are used as reference tests (93.38% (95% CI 86.30–100) and 98.51% (95% CI 94.65–100) sensitivity and specificity, respectively). Conclusion POCUS as an imaging modality has higher diagnostic accuracy than CXR in detecting pleural effusion. Moreover, the accuracy is still high even when performed by physicians with less POCUS training. Therefore, we suggest it is considered a first-line imaging tool for diagnosing pleural effusion at the patients’ bedside.

BackgroundAcute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening medical condition with high early fatality. Therefore, a prompt and precise diagnosis, which can be achieved through invasive and non-invasive techniques is vital. Echocardiography, unlike MRI and CT, is accessible in emergency units and bedside-compatible. The recommended echocardiographic techniques for AAD are transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography (TTE and TOE). Therefore, our review compares their diagnostic roles in AAD.MethodsStudies relevant to our topic were attained through a database search and manual scrutiny of references lists of articles obtained from the electronic databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) has been used for quality assessment. All quantitative analyses were performed using either STATA 16 or Comprehensive Meta-Analyst software.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 1,798 articles, of which only 11 were eligible for inclusion. Our subgroup analysis showed that conventional TTE had a sensitivity and specificity of 85.35% and 84.51% for the diagnosis of Stanford type A AAD and was 45.89% sensitive and 87.05% specific for the diagnosis of type B AAD. However, the subgroup analysis shows that contrast-enhancement of TTE results in a sensitivity and specificity of 93.30% and 97.60% for diagnosis of type A AAD, and 83.60% and 94.50% for diagnosis of type B AAD, respectively. On the other hand, conventional TOE was 93.64% sensitive and 95.50% specific for the diagnosis of type A AAD, 99.80% sensitive and 99.87% specific for the diagnosis of type B AAD. Moreover, our analyses show that TTE has pooled false negative and positive rates of 28.6% and 18.6%, while TOE has shown false negative and positive rates of 2.4% and 4.3%, respectively.ConclusionTOE is the more favorable diagnostic tool for AAD diagnosis than TTE. However, it cannot be used as a stand-alone diagnostic tool since misdiagnosis cases are being reported. Contrast-enhanced TTE can also diagnose AAD since it provides similar results to conventional TOE.