Back to Search Start Over

Accuracy of lung ultrasonography in the hands of non-imaging specialists to diagnose and assess the severity of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review.

Authors :
Strøm JJ
Haugen PS
Hansen MP
Graumann O
Jensen MBB
Aakjær Andersen C
Source :
BMJ open [BMJ Open] 2020 Jun 17; Vol. 10 (6), pp. e036067. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jun 17.
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients.<br />Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.<br />Results: We included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or 'speciality not described'. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias.<br />Conclusion: We found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding.<br />Prospero Registration Number: Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804).<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.<br /> (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2044-6055
Volume :
10
Issue :
6
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
BMJ open
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
32554727
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036067