Department of Primary Care and Emergency Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Shogoin Kawaramachi 54, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Department of Preventive Services, School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
World J Emerg Surg. 2020 Oct 2;15(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00334-z.
Pelvic fractures are common among blunt trauma patients, and timely and accurate diagnosis can improve patient outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether physical examinations are sufficient in this context. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of physical examination for pelvic fracture among blunt trauma patients.
Studies were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases starting from the creation of the database to January 2020. A total of 20 studies (49,043 patients with 8300 cases [16.9%] of pelvic fracture) were included in the quality assessment and meta-analysis. Two investigators extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias in each study. The meta-analysis involved a hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (ROC) model to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the physical exam. Subgroup analysis assessed the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve analysis.
The median prevalence of pelvic fracture was 10.5% (interquartile range, 5.1-16.5). The pooled sensitivity (and corresponding 95% confidence interval) of the hierarchical summary ROC parameters was 0.859 (0.761-0.952) at a given specificity of 0.920, which was the median value among the included studies. Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity among patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥ 13 was 0.933 (0.847-0.998) at a given specificity of 0.920. The corresponding value for patients with scores ≤ 13 was 0.761 (0.560-0.932). For threshold probability < 0.01 with 10-15% prevalence, the net benefit of imaging tests was higher than that of physical examination.
Imaging tests should be performed in all trauma patients regardless of findings from physical examination or patients' levels of consciousness. However, the clinical role of physical examination should be considered given the prevalence and threshold probability in each setting.
骨盆骨折在钝性创伤患者中较为常见,及时准确的诊断可以改善患者的预后。然而,目前尚不清楚在这种情况下体格检查是否足够。本研究旨在对钝性创伤患者骨盆骨折体格检查的诊断准确性和临床实用性进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
从数据库创建开始到 2020 年 1 月,使用 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CENTRAL 数据库对研究进行了检索。共有 20 项研究(49043 名患者,8300 例[16.9%]骨盆骨折)纳入质量评估和荟萃分析。两名研究者提取数据并评估了每项研究的偏倚风险。荟萃分析采用分层综合受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)模型计算体格检查的诊断准确性。亚组分析评估了研究间异质性的程度。使用决策曲线分析评估临床实用性。
骨盆骨折的中位患病率为 10.5%(四分位间距,5.1-16.5)。在给定的特异性为 0.920 时,分层综合 ROC 参数的汇总敏感性(相应的 95%置信区间)为 0.859(0.761-0.952)。亚组分析显示,格拉斯哥昏迷评分≥13 的患者的汇总敏感性为 0.933(0.847-0.998),在给定的特异性为 0.920 时。格拉斯哥昏迷评分≤13 的患者的相应值为 0.761(0.560-0.932)。对于阈值概率<0.01且患病率为 10%-15%的患者,影像学检查的净获益高于体格检查。
无论体格检查结果或患者意识水平如何,都应在所有创伤患者中进行影像学检查。然而,鉴于每个设置的患病率和阈值概率,应考虑体格检查的临床作用。