Department of Neuroscience, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 900 rue Saint-Denis, Montreal, QC, H2X 3H8, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 2023 Apr;70(4):736-748. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02426-1. Epub 2023 May 8.
Ancillary tests are frequently used in death determination by neurologic criteria (DNC), particularly when the clinical neurologic examination is unreliable. Nevertheless, their diagnostic accuracy has not been extensively studied. Our objective was to synthesize the sensitivity and specificity of commonly used ancillary tests for DNC.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and CINAHL Ebsco from their inception to 4 February 2022. We selected cohort and case-control studies including patients with 1) clinically diagnosed death by neurologic criteria or 2) clinically suspected death by neurologic criteria who underwent ancillary testing for DNC. We excluded studies without a priori diagnostic criteria and studies conducted solely on pediatric patients. Accepted reference standards were clinical examination, four-vessel conventional angiography, and radionuclide imaging. Data were directly extracted from published reports. We assessed the methodological quality of studies with the QUADAS-2 tool and estimated ancillary test sensitivities and specificities using hierarchical Bayesian models with diffuse priors.
Overall, 137 records met the selection criteria. One study (0.7%) had a low risk of bias in all QUADAS-2 domains. Among clinically diagnosed death by neurologic criteria patients (n = 8,891), ancillary tests had similar pooled sensitivities (range, 0.82-0.93). Sensitivity heterogeneity was greater within (σ = 0.10-0.15) than between (σ = 0.04) ancillary test types. Among clinically suspected death by neurologic criteria patients (n = 2,732), pooled ancillary test sensitivities ranged between 0.81 and 1.00 and specificities between 0.87 and 1.00. Most estimates had high statistical uncertainty.
Studies assessing ancillary test diagnostic accuracy have an unclear or high risk of bias. High-quality studies are required to thoroughly validate ancillary tests for DNC.
PROSPERO (CRD42013005907); registered 7 October 2013.
辅助检查常用于神经标准(DNC)确定的死亡,尤其是当临床神经检查不可靠时。然而,其诊断准确性尚未得到广泛研究。我们的目的是综合常用辅助检查在 DNC 中的敏感性和特异性。
我们通过检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 数据库和 CINAHL Ebsco 从其成立到 2022 年 2 月 4 日进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。我们选择了队列和病例对照研究,包括 1)临床诊断为神经标准的死亡患者或 2)临床怀疑为神经标准的死亡患者,他们接受了 DNC 的辅助检查。我们排除了没有预先设定的诊断标准的研究和仅在儿科患者中进行的研究。接受的参考标准是临床检查、四血管常规血管造影和放射性核素成像。数据直接从已发表的报告中提取。我们使用 QUADAS-2 工具评估研究的方法学质量,并使用具有弥散先验的分层贝叶斯模型估计辅助检查的敏感性和特异性。
总体而言,有 137 条记录符合选择标准。一项研究(0.7%)在所有 QUADAS-2 领域的偏倚风险较低。在临床诊断为神经标准的死亡患者(n = 8891)中,辅助检查的敏感性相似,范围在 0.82-0.93。辅助检查类型内的敏感性异质性较大(σ = 0.10-0.15),而类型间的异质性较小(σ = 0.04)。在临床怀疑为神经标准的死亡患者(n = 2732)中,辅助检查的敏感性范围为 0.81-1.00,特异性范围为 0.87-1.00。大多数估计值的统计不确定性很高。
评估辅助检查诊断准确性的研究存在不明确或高偏倚风险。需要高质量的研究来彻底验证 DNC 的辅助检查。
PROSPERO(CRD42013005907);2013 年 10 月 7 日注册。