IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228788.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic accuracy of three ultrasonography strategies for deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Noémie Kraaijpoel
  • Marc Carrier
  • Grégoire Le Gal
  • Matthew D F McInnes
  • Jean-Paul Salameh
  • Trevor A McGrath
  • Nick van Es
  • David Moher
  • Harry R Büller
  • Patrick M Bossuyt
  • Mariska M G Leeflang

Abstract

Background: Compression ultrasonography (CUS) is the first-line imaging test in the diagnostic management of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremity. Three CUS strategies are used in clinical practice. However, their relative diagnostic accuracy is uncertain. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize and compare the diagnostic accuracy of single limited, serial limited, and whole-leg CUS for DVT. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from January 1st, 1989 to July 23rd, 2019 for studies assessing at least one of the CUS strategies in adults with suspected DVT of the lower extremity, using clinical follow-up for venous thromboembolism or contrast venography as the reference standard. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate by independent authors. A bivariate random-effects model was used to compute diagnostic accuracy summary estimates. Results: Forty studies (n = 21,250) were included. The venous thromboembolic event rate after a negative CUS (failure rate) of single limited (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.83–2.5), serial limited (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.4–2.5), and whole-leg CUS (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.6–1.6) did not differ significantly. The proportion of positive results was lower with single limited CUS, as was DVT prevalence in this group. Conclusions: The failure rates of single limited, serial limited, and whole-leg CUS for DVT appeared to be quite comparable. The relative failure rate of single limited CUS remains uncertain, as the DVT prevalence was lower in these studies. Therefore, this CUS strategy may only be safe in a selected group of low-risk patients. Preference for one of the strategies may be based on pretest probability assessment, feasibility, expertise, and perceived clinical relevance of isolated distal DVT.

Suggested Citation

  • Noémie Kraaijpoel & Marc Carrier & Grégoire Le Gal & Matthew D F McInnes & Jean-Paul Salameh & Trevor A McGrath & Nick van Es & David Moher & Harry R Büller & Patrick M Bossuyt & Mariska M G Leeflang, 2020. "Diagnostic accuracy of three ultrasonography strategies for deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228788
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228788
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228788&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228788. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.