Suppr超能文献

非影像专业人员进行肺部超声诊断成人社区获得性肺炎及评估其严重程度的准确性:系统评价。

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.

机构信息

Center for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Center for General Practice at Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 17;10(6):e036067. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036067.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804).

摘要

目的

我们旨在系统地回顾已发表的文献,这些文献涉及临床疑似肺炎的成年人,比较非影像学专家进行的肺部超声(LUS)与其他参考标准在诊断和评估社区获得性肺炎严重程度方面的准确性。此外,我们旨在描述 LUS 培训以及执行 LUS 的医生的专业背景、LUS 操作时间以及对患者的潜在危害。

材料与方法

我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库,检索时间截至 2019 年 5 月。我们纳入了使用 LUS 诊断肺炎的研究,但也通过其他方法证实了肺炎的存在。如果 LUS 由超声医师或放射科医师(影像学专家)进行,或者用于其他原因(如疑似肺炎),则排除相关研究。两位综述作者筛选并选择文章、提取数据,并使用诊断准确性研究的质量评估 2 进行质量评估。

结果

我们纳入了 17 项研究。LUS 诊断肺炎的敏感度范围为 0.68 至 1.00;然而,在 14 项研究中,敏感度≥0.91。特异性范围为 0.57 至 1.00。我们发现低诊断准确性和高诊断准确性研究之间没有明显差异。非影像学专家为急诊医师、内科医师、重症监护医师或“未描述专业”。五项研究描述了 LUS 培训,培训时长从 1 小时课程到完全有资质的超声教育不等。总体而言,研究的方法学质量较高,但一些研究存在较高的偏倚风险。

结论

我们发现研究之间存在显著的异质性。在大多数研究中,非影像学专家进行的 LUS 检查在诊断肺炎方面具有较高的敏感度和特异性。然而,由于方法学问题和异质性的存在,需要进行更大规模的研究,使用统一且明确的诊断标准和盲法。

前瞻性注册

在 PROSPERO(CRD42017057804)中进行了前瞻性注册。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验