IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0130066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography versus Chest Radiography for the Diagnosis of Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiong Ye
  • Hui Xiao
  • Bo Chen
  • SuiYang Zhang

Abstract

Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is being increasingly utilized in emergency and critical settings. We performed a systematic review of the current literature to compare the accuracy of LUS and chest radiography (CR) for the diagnosis of adult community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We searched in Pub Med, EMBASE dealing with both LUS and CR for diagnosis of adult CAP, and conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LUS in comparison with CR. The diagnostic standard that the index test compared was the hospital discharge diagnosis or the result of chest computed tomography scan as a “gold standard”. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity using the Mantel-Haenszel method and pooled diagnostic odds ratio using the DerSimonian-Laird method. Five articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Using hospital discharge diagnosis as reference, LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and a specificity of 0.90 (0.86 to 0.94), CR had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (0.73 to 0.80) and a specificity of 0.91 (0.87 to 0.94). LUS and CR compared with computed tomography scan in 138 patients in total, the Z statistic of the two summary receiver operating characteristic was 3.093 (P = 0.002), the areas under the curve for LUS and CR were 0.901 and 0.590, respectively. Our study indicates that LUS can help to diagnosis adult CAP by clinicians and the accuracy was better compared with CR using chest computed tomography scan as the gold standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiong Ye & Hui Xiao & Bo Chen & SuiYang Zhang, 2015. "Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography versus Chest Radiography for the Diagnosis of Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-9, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130066
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130066
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130066&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0130066?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:pone00:0130066. 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.