Kummerfeldt Carlos E, Chopra Amit, Albaba Isam, Dutta Sharmistha, Huggins John T, Ioachimescu Octavian, Hu Kurt
Texas A & M University School of Medicine at Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, TX, USA.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.
Respir Med. 2025 Oct;247:108296. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2025.108296. Epub 2025 Aug 6.
Literature on the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic ultrasound (TUS) in differentiating transudates from exudates is sparse. We sought to summarize available evidence on the accuracy of TUS at distinguishing between transudative and exudative pleural effusions.
We included studies of patients with pleural effusions who underwent TUS and a thoracentesis with pleural fluid analysis. We performed meta-analyses using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots were created to visualize the overall diagnostic accuracy of TUS for complex and anechoic patterns.
We included five studies in the final analysis. A total of 1422 effusions were included in the final analysis (491 anechoic transudates, 300 anechoic exudates, 34 echogenic transudates, and 597 echogenic exudates). An echogenic TUS pattern for detecting an exudate demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.71 (95 % CI 0.57 to 0.82) and specificity of 0.92 (95 % CI 0.59 to 0.99), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 34.82 (95 % CI 4.23 to 286.42). The overall performance showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 and a partial AUC (pAUC) of 0.77. Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I = 90.9 % for sensitivity and 91.9 % for specificity).
An echogenic TUS pattern can reliably identify an exudative effusion, but an anechoic TUS pattern cannot reliably identify a transudative effusion. In cases of diagnostic uncertainty, thoracentesis and pleural fluid analysis are still needed to correctly classify the effusion.
关于胸部超声(TUS)鉴别漏出液和渗出液诊断准确性的文献较少。我们试图总结关于TUS区分漏出性和渗出性胸腔积液准确性的现有证据。
我们纳入了接受TUS检查以及胸腔穿刺并进行胸水分析的胸腔积液患者的研究。我们使用双变量模型进行荟萃分析,以估计和比较汇总敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值。绘制汇总受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,以直观显示TUS对复杂和无回声模式的总体诊断准确性。
我们在最终分析中纳入了五项研究。最终分析共纳入1422例积液(491例无回声漏出液、300例无回声渗出液、34例有回声漏出液和597例有回声渗出液)。检测渗出液的有回声TUS模式显示汇总敏感性为0.71(95%CI 0.57至0.82),特异性为0.92(95%CI 0.59至0.99),诊断比值比为34.82(95%CI 4.23至286.42)。总体表现显示曲线下面积(AUC)为0.81,部分AUC(pAUC)为0.77。各研究间观察到显著异质性(敏感性的I² = 90.9%,特异性的I² = 91.9%)。
有回声TUS模式可可靠识别渗出性积液,但无回声TUS模式不能可靠识别漏出性积液。在诊断不确定的情况下,仍需要进行胸腔穿刺和胸水分析以正确分类积液。