-
Veterinary Surgery : VS Jan 2020To evaluate the evidence published on the treatment of idiopathic chylothorax (IC) in small animals.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence published on the treatment of idiopathic chylothorax (IC) in small animals.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic literature review.
SAMPLE POPULATION
Dogs and cats with IC.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in three bibliographic databases in July 2018 for publications on IC in dogs and cats. Articles meeting criteria for inclusion were evaluated for treatment, survival, outcome data, and level of evidence (LoE) with a modified Oxford Level of Evidence (mOLE) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) system.
RESULTS
Eleven of 313 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. Only one study was identified in dogs as having higher LoE by using the mOLE system, whereas no study was identified as such in either species with the GRADE system. Surgery was the primary treatment in all dogs and in 93% (68/73) of cats. Medical therapy was the primary treatment in 7% (5/73) of cats. The most common surgical treatment combined thoracic duct ligation (TDL) and subtotal pericardiectomy (SP; 40%; 34/84) in dogs and TDL in cats (51% [37/73]).
CONCLUSION
The body of literature for IC treatment in small animals was limited to one higher LoE study in dogs and none in cats. No strong conclusion could be drawn regarding the effectiveness of any one surgical method in dogs or cats, and no evidence was found to support medical therapy as a primary treatment.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The best available evidence regarding the treatment of IC is published in dogs and provides some support for surgical treatment with either TDL + cisterna chyli ablation or TDL + SP. Additional evidence is required to confirm this finding.
Topics: Animals; Cat Diseases; Cats; Chylothorax; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Ligation; Pericardiectomy; Thoracic Duct; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31508821
DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13322 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Nasal high flow (nHF) therapy provides heated, humidified air and oxygen via two small nasal prongs, at gas flows of more than 1 litre/minute (L/min), typically 2 L/min... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nasal high flow (nHF) therapy provides heated, humidified air and oxygen via two small nasal prongs, at gas flows of more than 1 litre/minute (L/min), typically 2 L/min to 8 L/min. nHF is commonly used for non-invasive respiratory support in preterm neonates. It may be used in this population for primary respiratory support (avoiding, or prior to the use of mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube) for prophylaxis or treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). This is an update of a review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants compared to other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing nHF with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants born less than 37 weeks' gestation with respiratory distress soon after birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Neonatal methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. death (before hospital discharge) or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), 2. death (before hospital discharge), 3. BPD, 4. treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry and 5. mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube within 72 hours of trial entry. Our secondary outcomes were 6. respiratory support, 7. complications and 8. neurosensory outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies (2540 infants) in this updated review. There are nine studies awaiting classification and 13 ongoing studies. The included studies differed in the comparator treatment (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)), the devices for delivering nHF and the gas flows used. Some studies allowed the use of 'rescue' CPAP in the event of nHF treatment failure, prior to any mechanical ventilation, and some allowed surfactant administration via the INSURE (INtubation, SURfactant, Extubation) technique without this being deemed treatment failure. The studies included very few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation. Several studies had unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. Nasal high flow compared with continuous positive airway pressure for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Eleven studies compared nHF with CPAP for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.60; risk difference (RD) 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 7 studies, 1830 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.39; 9 studies, 2009 infants; low-certainty evidence), or BPD (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; 8 studies, 1917 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.06; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 8 to 17; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, nHF likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in pneumothorax (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.08; 10 studies, 2094 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nasal trauma (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; 7 studies, 1595 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Four studies compared nHF with NIPPV for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with NIPPV, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.37; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.04; 2 studies, 182 infants; very low-certainty evidence). nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.69; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05; 3 studies, 254 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the incidence of treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with NIPPV (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.79; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), or mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in nasal trauma, compared with NIPPV (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47; RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.10; 3 studies, 272 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the rate of pneumothorax (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.53; 4 studies, 344 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with ambient oxygen We found no studies examining this comparison. Nasal high flow compared with low flow nasal cannulae We found no studies examining this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The use of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants of 28 weeks' gestation or greater may result in little to no difference in death or BPD, compared with CPAP or NIPPV. nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with CPAP; however, it likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation. Compared with CPAP, nHF use likely results in less nasal trauma and likely a reduction in pneumothorax. As few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation were enrolled in the included trials, evidence is lacking for the use of nHF for primary respiratory support in this population.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia; Infant, Extremely Premature; Oxygen; Pneumothorax; Respiration, Artificial; Surface-Active Agents
PubMed: 37144837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006405.pub4 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2024To compare LISA with INSURE technique for surfactant administration in preterm with gestational age (GA) < 36 weeks with RDS in respect to the incidence of pneumothorax,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Less invasive surfactant administration versus intubation-surfactant-extubation in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVES
To compare LISA with INSURE technique for surfactant administration in preterm with gestational age (GA) < 36 weeks with RDS in respect to the incidence of pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), need for mechanical ventilation (MV), regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2), peri‑intraventricular hemorrhage (PIVH) and mortality.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, CINAHL, SciELO databases, Brazilian Registry of Randomized Clinical Trials (ReBEC), Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed. RCTs evaluating the effects of the LISA technique versus INSURE in preterm infants with gestational age < 36 weeks and that had as outcomes evaluation of the rates of pneumothorax, BPD, need for MV, rSO2, PIVH, and mortality were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects and hazard ratio models were used to combine all study results. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q statistics and Higgin's I2 statistics.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs published between 2012 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria, a total of 1,944 preterms. Eleven studies showed a shorter duration of MV and CPAP in the LISA group than in INSURE group. Two studies evaluated rSO2 and suggested that LISA and INSURE transiently affect brain autoregulation during surfactant administration. INSURE group had a higher risk for MV in the first 72 h of life, pneumothorax, PIVH and mortality in comparison to the LISA group.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analyses provided evidence for the benefits of the LISA technique in the treatment of RDS, decreasing CPAP time, need for MV, BPD, pneumothorax, PIVH, and mortality when compared to INSURE.
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Infant, Premature; Surface-Active Agents; Airway Extubation; Pneumothorax; Pulmonary Surfactants; Intubation; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; Cerebral Hemorrhage
PubMed: 37353207
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2023.05.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common problem for people with cancer and usually associated with considerable breathlessness. A number of treatment options are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common problem for people with cancer and usually associated with considerable breathlessness. A number of treatment options are available to manage the uncontrolled accumulation of pleural fluid, including administration of a pleurodesis agent (via a chest tube or thoracoscopy) or placement of an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC). This is an update of a review published in Issue 5, 2016, which replaced the original, published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To ascertain the optimal management strategy for adults with malignant pleural effusion in terms of pleurodesis success and to quantify differences in patient-reported outcomes and adverse effects between interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and three other databases to June 2019. We screened reference lists from other relevant publications and searched trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of intrapleural interventions for adults with symptomatic MPE, comparing types of sclerosant, mode of administration and IPC use.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, characteristics, outcome measures, potential effect modifiers and risk of bias. The primary outcome was pleurodesis failure rate. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, patient-reported breathlessness control, quality of life, cost, mortality, survival, duration of inpatient stay and patient acceptability. We performed network meta-analyses of primary outcome data and secondary outcomes with enough data. We also performed pair-wise meta-analyses of direct comparison data. If we deemed interventions not jointly randomisable, or we found insufficient available data, we reported results by narrative synthesis. For the primary outcome, we performed sensitivity analyses to explore potential causes of heterogeneity and to evaluate pleurodesis agents administered via a chest tube only. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 80 randomised trials (18 new), including 5507 participants. We found all except three studies at high or unclear risk of bias for at least one domain. Due to the nature of the interventions, most studies were unblinded. Pleurodesis failure rate We included 55 studies of 21 interventions in the primary network meta-analysis. We estimated the rank of each intervention's effectiveness. Talc slurry (ranked 6, 95% credible interval (Cr-I) 3 to 10) is an effective pleurodesis agent (moderate certainty for comparison with placebo) and may result in fewer pleurodesis failures than bleomycin and doxycycline (bleomycin versus talc slurry: odds ratio (OR) 2.24, 95% Cr-I 1.10 to 4.68; low certainty; ranked 11, 95% Cr-I 7 to 15; doxycycline versus talc slurry: OR 2.51, 95% Cr-I 0.81 to 8.40; low certainty; ranked 12, 95% Cr-I 5 to 18). There is little evidence of a difference between the pleurodesis failure rate of talc poudrage and talc slurry (OR 0.50, 95% Cr-I 0.21 to 1.02; moderate certainty). Evidence for any difference was further reduced when restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias (defined as maximum one high risk domain in the risk of bias assessment) (pleurodesis failure talc poudrage versus talc slurry: OR 0.78, 95% Cr-I 0.16 to 2.08). IPCs without daily drainage are probably less effective at obtaining a definitive pleurodesis (cessation of pleural fluid drainage facilitating IPC removal) than talc slurry (OR 7.60, 95% Cr-I 2.96 to 20.47; rank = 18/21, 95% Cr-I 13 to 21; moderate certainty). Daily IPC drainage or instillation of talc slurry via IPC are likely to reduce pleurodesis failure rates. Adverse effects Adverse effects were inconsistently reported. We performed network meta-analyses for the risk of procedure-related fever and pain. The evidence for risk of developing fever was of low certainty, but suggested there may be little difference between interventions relative to talc slurry (talc poudrage: OR 0.89, 95% Cr-I 0.11 to 6.67; bleomycin: OR 2.33, 95% Cr-I 0.45 to 12.50; IPCs: OR 0.41, 95% Cr-I 0.00 to 50.00; doxycycline: OR 0.85, 95% Cr-I 0.05 to 14.29). Evidence also suggested there may be little difference between interventions in the risk of developing procedure-related pain, relative to talc slurry (talc poudrage: OR 1.26, 95% Cr-I 0.45 to 6.04; very-low certainty; bleomycin: OR 2.85, 95% Cr-I 0.78 to 11.53; low certainty; IPCs: OR 1.30, 95% Cr-I 0.29 to 5.87; low certainty; doxycycline: OR 3.35, 95% Cr-I 0.64 to 19.72; low certainty). Patient-reported control of breathlessness Pair-wise meta-analysis suggests there is likely no difference in breathlessness control, relative to talc slurry, of talc poudrage ((mean difference (MD) 4.00 mm, 95% CI -6.26 to 14.26) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale for breathlessness; studies = 1; participants = 184; moderate certainty) and IPCs without daily drainage (MD -6.12 mm, 95% CI -16.32 to 4.08; studies = 2; participants = 160; low certainty). Overall mortality There may be little difference between interventions when compared to talc slurry (bleomycin and IPC without daily drainage; low certainty) but evidence is uncertain for talc poudrage and doxycycline. Patient acceptability Pair-wise meta-analysis demonstrated that IPCs probably result in a reduced risk of requiring a repeat invasive pleural intervention (OR 0.25, 95% Cr-I 0.13 to 0.48; moderate certainty) relative to talc slurry. There is likely little difference in the risk of repeat invasive pleural intervention with talc poudrage relative to talc slurry (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.56; moderate certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, talc poudrage and talc slurry are effective methods for achieving a pleurodesis, with lower failure rates than a number of other commonly used interventions. IPCs provide an alternative approach; whilst associated with inferior definitive pleurodesis rates, comparable control of breathlessness can probably be achieved, with a lower risk of requiring repeat invasive pleural intervention. Local availability, global experience of agents and adverse events (which may not be identified in randomised trials) and patient preference must be considered when selecting an intervention. Further research is required to delineate the roles of different treatments according to patient characteristics, such as presence of trapped lung. Greater attention to patient-centred outcomes, including breathlessness, quality of life and patient preference is essential to inform clinical decision-making. Careful consideration to minimise the risk of bias and standardise outcome measures is essential for future trial design.
Topics: Adult; Bleomycin; Doxycycline; Dyspnea; Fever; Humans; Iodine; Network Meta-Analysis; Pleural Effusion, Malignant; Pleurodesis; Quinacrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Talc; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 32315458
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020).
OBJECTIVES
To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.
Topics: Adult; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Bias; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node; Tuberculosis, Meningeal; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Tuberculosis, Pleural
PubMed: 33448348
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012768.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography (CUS) by frontline non-radiologist physicians versus chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). To investigate the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity such as type of CUS operator (frontline non-radiologist physicians), type of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), and type of US probe on test accuracy.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from database inception to 10 April 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. We handsearched reference lists of included articles and reviews retrieved via electronic searching; and we carried out forward citation searching of relevant articles in Google Scholar and looked at the "Related articles" on PubMed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective, paired comparative accuracy studies comparing CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians to supine CXR in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) suspected of having pneumothorax, and with computed tomography (CT) of the chest or tube thoracostomy as the reference standard.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a data extraction form. We included studies using patients as the unit of analysis in the main analysis and we included those using lung fields in the secondary analysis. We performed meta-analyses by using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities and specificities.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies of which nine (410 traumatic pneumothorax patients out of 1271 patients) used patients as the unit of analysis; we thus included them in the primary analysis. The remaining four studies used lung field as the unit of analysis and we included them in the secondary analysis. We judged all studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in one or more domains, with most studies (11/13, 85%) being judged at high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain. There was substantial heterogeneity in the sensitivity of supine CXR amongst the included studies. In the primary analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity of CUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); and the summary sensitivity and specificity of supine CXR were 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). There was a significant difference in the sensitivity of CUS compared to CXR with an absolute difference in sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, CUS and CXR had similar specificities: comparing CUS to CXR, the absolute difference in specificity was -0.007 (95% CI -0.018 to 0.005, P = 0.35). The findings imply that in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients if 30 patients have traumatic pneumothorax (i.e. prevalence of 30%), CUS would miss 3 (95% CI 2 to 4) cases (false negatives) and overdiagnose 1 (95% CI 0 to 2) of those without pneumothorax (false positives); while CXR would miss 16 (95% CI 11 to 21) cases with 0 (95% CI 0 to 2) overdiagnosis of those who do not have pneumothorax.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The diagnostic accuracy of CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in ED trauma patients is superior to supine CXR, independent of the type of trauma, type of CUS operator, or type of CUS probe used. These findings suggest that CUS for the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax should be incorporated into trauma protocols and algorithms in future medical training programmes; and that CUS may beneficially change routine management of trauma.
Topics: Bias; Confidence Intervals; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Pneumothorax; Prospective Studies; Radiography, Thoracic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Supine Position; Thoracic Injuries; Ultrasonography; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Wounds, Penetrating
PubMed: 32702777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013031.pub2 -
Chest Jan 2020Pleural biopsy using either video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or medical pleuroscopy is the current diagnostic criterion standard for pleural pathology with a high,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pleural biopsy using either video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or medical pleuroscopy is the current diagnostic criterion standard for pleural pathology with a high, yet imperfect, diagnostic yield. Cryobiopsy may provide greater tissue, increase depth of sampled tissue, and/or reduce crush artifact. However, its impact on diagnostic yield remains uncertain, and there are potential concerns regarding its safety too. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the same.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar for studies evaluating the performance of pleural cryobiopsy, assessing the quality of each study using the Quality Assessment, Data Abstraction and Synthesis-2 tool. Using inverse variance weighting, we performed a meta-analysis of diagnostic yield estimations. We also reviewed specimen characteristics and complications related to the procedure.
RESULTS
Seven observational studies involving 586 pleural biopsies (311 cryobiopsies and 275 flexible forceps biopsies) were evaluated. All but one study used a semi-rigid thoracoscope. Meta-analysis generated a diagnostic yield of 96.5% for cryobiopsy and 93.1% for forceps biopsy with an inverse variance-weighted OR of 1.61 (95% CI, 0.71-3.66) and an I of 16%. No instances of moderate to severe bleeding were reported with cryobiopsy. A funnel plot illustrated no major publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on analysis of relatively homogenous observational data, pleural cryobiopsy is safe but does not increase diagnostic yield over flexible forceps biopsy. Adequately powered multicenter randomized trials are needed for further investigation.
Topics: Biopsy; Cryosurgery; Humans; Pleural Diseases; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted
PubMed: 31610161
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.09.023 -
Injury Oct 2021Tension pneumothorax (TPT) is a frequent life-threat following thoracic injury. Time-critical decompression of the pleural cavity improves survival. However, whilst... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tension pneumothorax (TPT) is a frequent life-threat following thoracic injury. Time-critical decompression of the pleural cavity improves survival. However, whilst paramedics utilise needle thoracostomy (NT) and/or finger thoracostomy (FT) in the prehospital setting, the superiority of one technique over the other remains unknown.
AIM
To determine and compare procedural success, complications and mortality between NT and FT for treatment of a suspected TPT when performed by paramedics.
METHODS
We searched four databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and Embase) from their commencement until 25 August 2020. Studies were included if they analysed patients suffering from a suspected TPT who were treated in the prehospital setting with a NT or FT by paramedics (or local equivalent nonphysicians).
RESULTS
The search yielded 293 articles after duplicates were removed of which 19 were included for final analysis. Seventeen studies were retrospective (8 cohort; 7 case series; 2 case control) and two were prospective cohort studies. Only one study was comparative, and none were randomised controlled trials. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=13) and the remaining in Australia (n=4), Switzerland (n=1) and Canada (n=1). Mortality ranged from 12.5% to 79% for NT and 64.7% to 92.9% for FT patients. A higher proportion of complications were reported among patients managed with NT (13.7%) compared to FT (4.8%). We extracted three common themes from the papers of what constituted as a successful pleural decompression; vital signs improvement, successful pleural cavity access and absence of TPT at hospital arrival.
CONCLUSION
Evidence surrounding prehospital pleural decompression of a TPT by paramedics is limited. Available literature suggests that both FT and NT are safe for pleural decompression, however both procedures have associated complications. Additional high-quality evidence and comparative studies investigating the outcomes of interest is necessary to determine if and which procedure is superior in the prehospital setting.
Topics: Allied Health Personnel; Decompression, Surgical; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Pneumothorax; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Thoracostomy
PubMed: 34454722
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.08.008 -
Journal of the American College of... Jun 2020To date, considerable knowledge gaps remain regarding the chest CT imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To date, considerable knowledge gaps remain regarding the chest CT imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of results from published studies to date to provide a summary of evidence on detection of COVID-19 by chest CT and the expected CT imaging manifestations.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching PubMed database for articles published between December 2019 and February 2020. Pooled CT positive rate of COVID-19 and pooled incidence of CT imaging findings were estimated using a random-effect model.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled positive rate of the CT imaging was 89.76% and 90.35% when only including thin-section chest CT. Typical CT signs were ground glass opacities (83.31%), ground glass opacities with mixed consolidation (58.42%), adjacent pleura thickening (52.46%), interlobular septal thickening (48.46%), and air bronchograms (46.46%). Other CT signs included crazy paving pattern (14.81%), pleural effusion (5.88%), bronchiectasis (5.42%), pericardial effusion (4.55%), and lymphadenopathy (3.38%). The most anatomic distributions were bilateral lung infection (78.2%) and peripheral distribution (76.95%). The incidences were highest in the right lower lobe (87.21%), left lower lobe (81.41%), and bilateral lower lobes (65.22%). The right upper lobe (65.22%), right middle lobe (54.95%), and left upper lobe (69.43%) were also commonly involved. The incidence of bilateral upper lobes was 60.87%. A considerable proportion of patients had three or more lobes involved (70.81%).
CONCLUSIONS
The detection of COVID-19 chest CT imaging is very high among symptomatic individuals at high risk, especially using thin-section chest CT. The most common CT features in patients affected by COVID-19 included ground glass opacities and consolidation involving the bilateral lungs in a peripheral distribution.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Humans; Male; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Radiography, Thoracic; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32283052
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.03.006 -
Thorax Jan 2023Pleural fluid cytology is an important diagnostic test used for the investigation of pleural effusions. There is considerable variability in the reported sensitivity for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pleural fluid cytology is an important diagnostic test used for the investigation of pleural effusions. There is considerable variability in the reported sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this review is to determine the diagnostic sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology for MPE, both overall and by tumour type, to better inform the decision-making process when investigating pleural effusions.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was performed by four reviewers. Articles satisfying inclusion criteria were evaluated for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool.
DATA EXTRACTION
For quantitative analysis, we performed a metaanalysis using a binary random-effects model to determine pooled sensitivity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on primary cancer site and meta-regression by year of publication.
SYNTHESIS
Thirty-six studies with 6057 patients with MPE were included in the meta-analysis. The overall diagnostic sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology for MPE was 58.2% (95% CI 52.5% to 63.9%; range 20.5%-86.0%). There was substantial heterogeneity present among studies (I 95.5%). For primary thoracic malignancies, sensitivity was highest in lung adenocarcinoma (83.6%; 95% CI 77.7% to 89.6%) and lowest in lung squamous cell carcinoma (24.2%; 95% CI 17.0% to 31.5%) and mesothelioma (28.9%; 95% CI 16.2% to 41.5%). For malignancies with extrathoracic origin, sensitivity was high for ovarian cancer (85.2%; 95% CI 74.2% to 96.1%) and modest for breast cancer (65.3%; 95% CI 49.8% to 80.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Pleural fluid cytology has an overall sensitivity of 58.2% for the diagnosis of MPE. Clinicians should be aware of the high variability in diagnostic sensitivity by primary tumour type as well as the potential reasons for false-negative cytology results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021231473.
Topics: Humans; Pleural Effusion, Malignant; Pleura; Mesothelioma; Pleural Effusion; Lung Neoplasms; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35110369
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217959