IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0304401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score alone or with D-dimer for acute aortic syndromes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Sa Ren
  • Munira Essat
  • Abdullah Pandor
  • Steve Goodacre
  • Shijie Ren
  • Mark Clowes
  • Paolo Bima
  • Mamoru Toyofuku
  • Rachel McLatchie
  • Eduardo Bossone

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) used alone or in combination with D-dimer for detecting acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of AAS. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the use of ADD-RS alone or with D-Dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test (e.g. computer tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using QUADAS-2 tool. Data were synthesised using hierarchical meta-analysis models. Results: We selected 13 studies from the 2017 citations identified, including six studies evaluating combinations of ADD-RS alongside D-dimer>500ng/L. Summary sensitivities and specificities (95% credible interval) were: ADD-RS>0 94.6% (90%, 97.5%) and 34.7% (20.7%, 51.2%), ADD-RS>1 43.4% (31.2%, 57.1%) and 89.3% (80.4%, 94.8%); ADD RS>0 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 99.8% (98.7%, 100%) and 21.8% (12.1%, 32.6%); ADD RS>1 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 98.3% (94.9%, 99.5%) and 51.4% (38.7%, 64.1%); ADD RS>1 or ADD RS = 1 with D-dimer>500ng/L 93.1% (87.1%, 96.3%) and 67.1% (54.4%, 77.7%). Conclusions: Combinations of ADD-RS and D-dimer can be used to select patients with suspected AAS for imaging with a range of trade-offs between sensitivity (93.1% to 99.8%) and specificity (21.8% to 67.1%).

Suggested Citation

  • Sa Ren & Munira Essat & Abdullah Pandor & Steve Goodacre & Shijie Ren & Mark Clowes & Paolo Bima & Mamoru Toyofuku & Rachel McLatchie & Eduardo Bossone, 2024. "Diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score alone or with D-dimer for acute aortic syndromes: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304401
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304401
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304401&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0304401?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:pone00:0304401. 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.