BACKGROUND: The best available test for the diagnosis of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) is contrast venography. The aim of this systematic review was to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of other tests for clinically suspected UEDVT is high enough to justify their use in clinical practise and to evaluate if any test can replace venography. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to June 2009. Two reviewers independently evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULTS: We identified 17 papers, reporting on 793 patients. Overall, the methodological quality was poor, sample sizes were small, and large between-study differences were observed in spectrum and design. The summary estimates of sensitivity (95% confidence interval) were 97% (90-100%) for compression ultrasonography, 84% (72-97%) for Doppler ultrasonography, 91% (85-97%) for Doppler ultrasonography with compression, and 85% (72-99%) for phleboreography. The corresponding summary estimates of specificity were, respectively, 96% (87-100%), 94% (86-100%), 93% (80-100%), and 87% (71-100%). Clinical findings, a clinical score, D-dimer, magnetic resonance imaging, rheography and plethysmography were evaluated in one study each, involving a median number of 46 patients (range 21-214). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 100% and from 14% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations, large between-study differences and small sample sizes limit the evidence of tests for clinically suspected UEDVT. Compression ultrasonography may be an acceptable alternative to venography. The addition of (color) Doppler does not seem to improve the accuracy. Adequately designed studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: The best available test for the diagnosis of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) is contrast venography. The aim of this systematic review was to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of other tests for clinically suspected UEDVT is high enough to justify their use in clinical practise and to evaluate if any test can replace venography. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to June 2009. Two reviewers independently evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULTS: We identified 17 papers, reporting on 793 patients. Overall, the methodological quality was poor, sample sizes were small, and large between-study differences were observed in spectrum and design. The summary estimates of sensitivity (95% confidence interval) were 97% (90-100%) for compression ultrasonography, 84% (72-97%) for Doppler ultrasonography, 91% (85-97%) for Doppler ultrasonography with compression, and 85% (72-99%) for phleboreography. The corresponding summary estimates of specificity were, respectively, 96% (87-100%), 94% (86-100%), 93% (80-100%), and 87% (71-100%). Clinical findings, a clinical score, D-dimer, magnetic resonance imaging, rheography and plethysmography were evaluated in one study each, involving a median number of 46 patients (range 21-214). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 100% and from 14% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations, large between-study differences and small sample sizes limit the evidence of tests for clinically suspected UEDVT. Compression ultrasonography may be an acceptable alternative to venography. The addition of (color) Doppler does not seem to improve the accuracy. Adequately designed studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
Authors: Shannon M Bates; Roman Jaeschke; Scott M Stevens; Steven Goodacre; Philip S Wells; Matthew D Stevenson; Clive Kearon; Holger J Schunemann; Mark Crowther; Stephen G Pauker; Regina Makdissi; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jan Heil; Wolfgang Miesbach; Thomas Vogl; Wolf O Bechstein; Alexander Reinisch Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: M Carrier; A Lazo-Langner; S Shivakumar; V Tagalakis; P L Gross; N Blais; C A Butts; M Crowther Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.677