Cargando…

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To perform a diagnostic accuracy of the rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) to diagnose the etiology of undifferentiated shock in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We searched the Medline via PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge till July 2017. Two independen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Keikha, Mojtaba, Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad, Soldoozi Nejat, Reihane, Sheikh Motahar Vahedi, Hojat, Mirrezaie, Seyed Mohammad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6215077/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30402514
http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/beat-060402
_version_ 1783368070019940352
author Keikha, Mojtaba
Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad
Soldoozi Nejat, Reihane
Sheikh Motahar Vahedi, Hojat
Mirrezaie, Seyed Mohammad
author_facet Keikha, Mojtaba
Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad
Soldoozi Nejat, Reihane
Sheikh Motahar Vahedi, Hojat
Mirrezaie, Seyed Mohammad
author_sort Keikha, Mojtaba
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To perform a diagnostic accuracy of the rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) to diagnose the etiology of undifferentiated shock in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We searched the Medline via PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge till July 2017. Two independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility. Our study analysis is planned in accordance with the guidelines for meta–analysis of diagnostic studies. In the systematic search, of 397 references, 295 were excluded on the basis of the title and abstract. For the remaining 102 articles, the full text was retrieved and critically reviewed. After the selection process, five papers were included. RESULTS: The pooled estimate of all data showed that the RUSH protocol exhibited high sensitivity (0.87, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.80-0.92, I2 = 46.7%) and specificity (0.98, 95% C. I.: 0.96-0.99, I2 = 30.8%). The AUC for SROC, a global measure of the RUSH protocol performance, was 0.98 ± 0.01, indicates the high accuracy of the test. Positive and negative likelihood ratios reported from the studies ranged from 9.83 to 51.32 and 0.04 to 0.33, respectively. The pooled estimate of all data showed that the RUSH protocol exhibited high positive likelihood ratio (19.19, 95% C. I.: 11.49-32.06, I2 = 14.1%) and low negative likelihood ratio (0.23, 95% C. I.: 0.15-0.34, I2 = 18.4%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that RUSH protocol has generally good role to distinguish the states of shock in patients with undifferentiated shock referred to the emergency department.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6215077
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62150772018-11-06 Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Keikha, Mojtaba Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad Soldoozi Nejat, Reihane Sheikh Motahar Vahedi, Hojat Mirrezaie, Seyed Mohammad Bull Emerg Trauma Review Article OBJECTIVE: To perform a diagnostic accuracy of the rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) to diagnose the etiology of undifferentiated shock in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We searched the Medline via PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge till July 2017. Two independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility. Our study analysis is planned in accordance with the guidelines for meta–analysis of diagnostic studies. In the systematic search, of 397 references, 295 were excluded on the basis of the title and abstract. For the remaining 102 articles, the full text was retrieved and critically reviewed. After the selection process, five papers were included. RESULTS: The pooled estimate of all data showed that the RUSH protocol exhibited high sensitivity (0.87, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.80-0.92, I2 = 46.7%) and specificity (0.98, 95% C. I.: 0.96-0.99, I2 = 30.8%). The AUC for SROC, a global measure of the RUSH protocol performance, was 0.98 ± 0.01, indicates the high accuracy of the test. Positive and negative likelihood ratios reported from the studies ranged from 9.83 to 51.32 and 0.04 to 0.33, respectively. The pooled estimate of all data showed that the RUSH protocol exhibited high positive likelihood ratio (19.19, 95% C. I.: 11.49-32.06, I2 = 14.1%) and low negative likelihood ratio (0.23, 95% C. I.: 0.15-0.34, I2 = 18.4%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that RUSH protocol has generally good role to distinguish the states of shock in patients with undifferentiated shock referred to the emergency department. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6215077/ /pubmed/30402514 http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/beat-060402 Text en © 2018 Trauma Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Bulletin of Emergency And Trauma articles are published under a Creative Commons license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/) Mandated authors will be offered CC-BY; all other authors will choose between CC-BY, CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-ND.
spellingShingle Review Article
Keikha, Mojtaba
Salehi-Marzijarani, Mohammad
Soldoozi Nejat, Reihane
Sheikh Motahar Vahedi, Hojat
Mirrezaie, Seyed Mohammad
Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort diagnostic accuracy of rapid ultrasound in shock (rush) exam; a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6215077/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30402514
http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/beat-060402
work_keys_str_mv AT keikhamojtaba diagnosticaccuracyofrapidultrasoundinshockrushexamasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT salehimarzijaranimohammad diagnosticaccuracyofrapidultrasoundinshockrushexamasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT soldoozinejatreihane diagnosticaccuracyofrapidultrasoundinshockrushexamasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sheikhmotaharvahedihojat diagnosticaccuracyofrapidultrasoundinshockrushexamasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mirrezaieseyedmohammad diagnosticaccuracyofrapidultrasoundinshockrushexamasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis