IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic accuracy of combined thoracic and cardiac sonography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline Kagima
  • Marie Stolbrink
  • Sheila Masheti
  • Collins Mbaiyani
  • Aziz Munubi
  • Elizabeth Joekes
  • Kevin Mortimer
  • Jamie Rylance
  • Ben Morton

Abstract

Objectives: Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the diagnostic standard for pulmonary embolism (PE), but is unavailable in many low resource settings. We evaluated the evidence for point of care ultrasound as an alternative diagnostic. Methods: Using a PROSPERO-registered, protocol-driven strategy (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, ID = CRD42018099925), we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINHAL for observational and clinical trials of cardiopulmonary ultrasound (CPUS) for PE. We included English-language studies of adult patients with acute breathlessness, reported according to PRISMA guidelines published in the last two decades (January 2000 to February 2020). The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of CPUS compared to reference standard CTPA for detection of PE in acutely breathless adults. Results: We identified 260 unique publications of which twelve met all inclusion criteria. Of these, seven studies (N = 3872) were suitable for inclusion in our meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy (two using CTPA and five using clinically derived diagnosis criterion). Meta-analysis of data demonstrated that using cardiopulmonary ultrasound (CPUS) was 91% sensitive and 81% specific for pulmonary embolism diagnosis compared to diagnostic standard CTPA. When compared to clinically derived diagnosis criterion, CPUS was 52% sensitive and 92% specific for PE diagnosis. We observed substantial heterogeneity across studies meeting inclusion criteria (I2 = 73.5%). Conclusions: Cardiopulmonary ultrasound may be useful in areas where CTPA is unavailable or unsuitable. Interpretation is limited by study heterogeneity. Further methodologically rigorous studies comparing CPUS and CTPA are important to inform clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline Kagima & Marie Stolbrink & Sheila Masheti & Collins Mbaiyani & Aziz Munubi & Elizabeth Joekes & Kevin Mortimer & Jamie Rylance & Ben Morton, 2020. "Diagnostic accuracy of combined thoracic and cardiac sonography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235940
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235940
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235940&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235940?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:pone00:0235940. 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.