Po-Yang Tsou1,2, Kenneth P Chen3, Yu-Hsun Wang1,2, Jennifer Fishe4, Jason Gillon5, Chien-Chang Lee6, Julia K Deanehan7, Pei-Lun Kuo2, Daniel Ta Yo Yu8. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Driscoll Children's Hospital, Corpus Christi, TX. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 3. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, San Diego, UCSD Medical Center, San Diego, CA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL. 5. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 7. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 8. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood pneumonia is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Growing evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) may be a reliable diagnostic alternative to chest x-ray for childhood pneumonia. However, it is unclear whether sonographer experience affects the diagnostic accuracy of LUS. We summarize the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for pneumonia and compare the performance between novice and advanced sonographers with a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to February 2018 for eligible studies that evaluated the utility of LUS in children suspected of having pneumonia against the reference standard of either imaging results alone or a combination of clinical, laboratory, and imaging results. We reported the study using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. We used QUADAS-2 to appraise the included studies' methodologic quality. We employed a random-effect bivariate model and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve to evaluate LUS's performance characteristics. We conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression based on level of sonographer training to summarize and compare LUS's diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia between novice (training ≤ 7 days) and advanced sonographers. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (n = 3,353) were included in the meta-analysis. For diagnosing pneumonia, LUS demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 0.97), specificity of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.98), positive likelihood ratio of 12.40 (95% CI = 4.00 to 38.10), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.07 (95% CI = 0.04 to 0.12), with an area under ROC curve of 0.97 (95% CI = 0.95 to 0.98). Meta-regression revealed a significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia for LUS between novice and advanced sonographers (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: LUS can accurately diagnose pneumonia in children. However, this test demonstrates operator-dependent variability, with more experienced sonographers having higher diagnostic accuracy. Further work on evidence-based educational methods to train novice sonographers in LUS is required.
BACKGROUND: Childhood pneumonia is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Growing evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) may be a reliable diagnostic alternative to chest x-ray for childhood pneumonia. However, it is unclear whether sonographer experience affects the diagnostic accuracy of LUS. We summarize the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for pneumonia and compare the performance between novice and advanced sonographers with a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to February 2018 for eligible studies that evaluated the utility of LUS in children suspected of having pneumonia against the reference standard of either imaging results alone or a combination of clinical, laboratory, and imaging results. We reported the study using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. We used QUADAS-2 to appraise the included studies' methodologic quality. We employed a random-effect bivariate model and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve to evaluate LUS's performance characteristics. We conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression based on level of sonographer training to summarize and compare LUS's diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia between novice (training ≤ 7 days) and advanced sonographers. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (n = 3,353) were included in the meta-analysis. For diagnosing pneumonia, LUS demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 0.97), specificity of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.98), positive likelihood ratio of 12.40 (95% CI = 4.00 to 38.10), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.07 (95% CI = 0.04 to 0.12), with an area under ROC curve of 0.97 (95% CI = 0.95 to 0.98). Meta-regression revealed a significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia for LUS between novice and advanced sonographers (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: LUS can accurately diagnose pneumonia in children. However, this test demonstrates operator-dependent variability, with more experienced sonographers having higher diagnostic accuracy. Further work on evidence-based educational methods to train novice sonographers in LUS is required.
Authors: Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Contreras; Antonio Calvo-Cebrián; Juncal Díaz-Lázaro; Miguel Cruz-Arnés; Fernando León-Vázquez; María Del Carmen Lobón-Agúndez; Francisco Javier Palau-Cuevas; Paloma Henares-García; Fernando Gavilán-Martínez; Sandra Fernández-Plaza; Carmelo Prieto-Zancudo Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Carmina Guitart; Esther Esteban; Judit Becerra; Javier Rodríguez-Fanjul; Francisco José Cambra; Mònica Balaguer; Iolanda Jordan Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Anna Maria Musolino; Paolo Tomà; Cristina De Rose; Eugenio Pitaro; Elena Boccuzzi; Rita De Santis; Rosa Morello; Maria Chiara Supino; Alberto Villani; Piero Valentini; Danilo Buonsenso Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 4.566