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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |