OBJECTIVES: Performing an extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST) exam is common practice in the initial assessment of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to systematically review the published literature on diagnostic accuracy of all components of the eFAST exam. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from inception through October 2018, for diagnostic studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of the eFAST exam. After removal of duplicates, 767 records remained for screening, of which 119 underwent full text review. Meta-DiSc™ software was used to create pooled sensitivities and specificities for included studies. Study quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Seventy-five studies representing 24,350 patients satisfied our selection criteria. Studies were published between 1989 and 2017. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the detection of pneumothorax (69% and 99% respectively), pericardial effusion (91% and 94% respectively), and intra-abdominal free fluid (74% and 98% respectively). Sub-group analysis was completed for detection of intra-abdominal free fluid in hypotensive (sensitivity 74% and specificity 95%), adult normotensive (sensitivity 76% and specificity 98%) and pediatric patients (sensitivity 71% and specificity 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that e-FAST is a useful bedside tool for ruling in pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, and intra-abdominal free fluid in the trauma setting. Its usefulness as a rule-out tool is not supported by these results.
OBJECTIVES: Performing an extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST) exam is common practice in the initial assessment of traumapatients. The objective of this study was to systematically review the published literature on diagnostic accuracy of all components of the eFAST exam. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from inception through October 2018, for diagnostic studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of the eFAST exam. After removal of duplicates, 767 records remained for screening, of which 119 underwent full text review. Meta-DiSc™ software was used to create pooled sensitivities and specificities for included studies. Study quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Seventy-five studies representing 24,350 patients satisfied our selection criteria. Studies were published between 1989 and 2017. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the detection of pneumothorax (69% and 99% respectively), pericardial effusion (91% and 94% respectively), and intra-abdominal free fluid (74% and 98% respectively). Sub-group analysis was completed for detection of intra-abdominal free fluid in hypotensive (sensitivity 74% and specificity 95%), adult normotensive (sensitivity 76% and specificity 98%) and pediatric patients (sensitivity 71% and specificity 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that e-FAST is a useful bedside tool for ruling in pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, and intra-abdominal free fluid in the trauma setting. Its usefulness as a rule-out tool is not supported by these results.
Authors: Christopher Partyka; Andrew Coggins; Jimmy Bliss; Brian Burns; Michele Fiorentino; Pierre Goorkiz; Matthew Miller Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2021-11-24