Pasha Normahani1, Chira Mustafa2, Joseph Shalhoub3, Alun H Davies3, John Norrie4, Viknesh Sounderajah3, Sasha Smith5, Usman Jaffer3. 1. Imperial Vascular Unit, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p.normahani@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Department of Haematology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. 3. Imperial Vascular Unit, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: No agreement has been reached regarding which bedside test is the most useful for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in patients with diabetes. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the performance of bedside tests for the detection of PAD in individuals with diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies providing data on the diagnostic performance of bedside tests used for the detection of PAD in those with diabetes. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of PAD. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies, reporting on a total of 3016 limbs of diabetic patients, were included in our qualitative review. Of these, 11 studies (1543 limbs) were included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy: ankle-brachial pressure index (9 studies and 1368 limbs; sensitivity, 63.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 51.7%-73.9%]; specificity, 89.3% [95% CI, 81.1%-94.2%]); toe-brachial pressure index (3 studies and 221 limbs; sensitivity, 83.0% [95% CI, 59.1-94.3%]; specificity, 66.3% [95% CI, 41.3%-84.6%]); and tibial waveform assessment (4 studies and 397 limbs; sensitivity, 82.8% [95% CI, 73.3%-89.4%], specificity, 86.8% [95% CI, 75.5%-93.3%]). Overall, we found a high risk of bias across the studies, most frequently relating to patient selection and the lack of blinding. CONCLUSIONS: The toe-brachial pressure index, pulse oximetry, and tibial arterial waveform assessment demonstrated some promise, warranting further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: No agreement has been reached regarding which bedside test is the most useful for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in patients with diabetes. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the performance of bedside tests for the detection of PAD in individuals with diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies providing data on the diagnostic performance of bedside tests used for the detection of PAD in those with diabetes. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of PAD. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies, reporting on a total of 3016 limbs of diabeticpatients, were included in our qualitative review. Of these, 11 studies (1543 limbs) were included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy: ankle-brachial pressure index (9 studies and 1368 limbs; sensitivity, 63.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 51.7%-73.9%]; specificity, 89.3% [95% CI, 81.1%-94.2%]); toe-brachial pressure index (3 studies and 221 limbs; sensitivity, 83.0% [95% CI, 59.1-94.3%]; specificity, 66.3% [95% CI, 41.3%-84.6%]); and tibial waveform assessment (4 studies and 397 limbs; sensitivity, 82.8% [95% CI, 73.3%-89.4%], specificity, 86.8% [95% CI, 75.5%-93.3%]). Overall, we found a high risk of bias across the studies, most frequently relating to patient selection and the lack of blinding. CONCLUSIONS: The toe-brachial pressure index, pulse oximetry, and tibial arterial waveform assessment demonstrated some promise, warranting further investigation.