We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Screening Performance Characteristic of Ultrasonography and Radiography in Detection of Pleural Effusion; a Meta-Analysis.
INTRODUCTION: The role of ultrasonography in detection of pleural effusion has long been a subject of interest but controversial results have been reported. Accordingly, this study aims to conduct a systematic review of the available literature on diagnostic value of ultrasonography and radiography in detection of pleural effusion through a meta-analytic approach.
METHODS: An extended search was done in databases of Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the articles. Meta-analysis was performed using a mixed-effects binary regression model. Finally, subgroup analysis was carried out in order to find the sources of heterogeneity between the included studies.
RESULTS: 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis (1554 subjects, 58.6% male). Pooled sensitivity of ultrasonography in detection of pleural effusion was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97; I2= 84.23, p<0.001) and its pooled specificity was calculated to be 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.0; I2= 88.65, p<0.001), while sensitivity and specificity of chest radiography were 0.51 (95% CI: 0.33-0.68; I2= 91.76, p<0.001) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.68-0.98; I2= 92.86, p<0.001), respectively. Sensitivity of ultrasonography was found to be higher when the procedure was carried out by an intensivist or a radiologist using 5-10 MHz transducers.
CONCLUSION: Chest ultrasonography, as a screening tool, has a higher diagnostic accuracy in identification of plural effusion compared to radiography. The sensitivity of this imaging modality was found to be higher when performed by a radiologist or an intensivist and using 5-10MHz probes.
METHODS: An extended search was done in databases of Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the articles. Meta-analysis was performed using a mixed-effects binary regression model. Finally, subgroup analysis was carried out in order to find the sources of heterogeneity between the included studies.
RESULTS: 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis (1554 subjects, 58.6% male). Pooled sensitivity of ultrasonography in detection of pleural effusion was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97; I2= 84.23, p<0.001) and its pooled specificity was calculated to be 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.0; I2= 88.65, p<0.001), while sensitivity and specificity of chest radiography were 0.51 (95% CI: 0.33-0.68; I2= 91.76, p<0.001) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.68-0.98; I2= 92.86, p<0.001), respectively. Sensitivity of ultrasonography was found to be higher when the procedure was carried out by an intensivist or a radiologist using 5-10 MHz transducers.
CONCLUSION: Chest ultrasonography, as a screening tool, has a higher diagnostic accuracy in identification of plural effusion compared to radiography. The sensitivity of this imaging modality was found to be higher when performed by a radiologist or an intensivist and using 5-10MHz probes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app