Evaluation of the accuracy of ultrasound has yielded heterogeneous results. Our objective was to summarize the evidence on the accuracy of ultrasound compared to venography in asymptomatic patients, taking into account the variation due to threshold differences. Searches of journal table of contents, computer databases (Medline, Embase, Biomed, Cochrane) and conference proceedings were performed. A study was eligible if it prospectively compared ultrasound to venography for the diagnosis of DVT in asymptomatic patients. Data of studies selected for inclusion were extracted independently by two authors. High quality studies with consecutive patient enrollment, blind evaluation of the two techniques, and absence of verification bias are summarized as Level 1, while those not fulfilling one or more of these criteria are considered Level 2. Original study authors were contacted to confirm accuracy and to provide missing data. A pooled estimate of the accuracy of ultrasound was obtained according to the method of Moses and coworkers. This method gives a summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The DOR is a single indicator of test performance. It varies between 0 and infinity and exceeds 1, only when ultrasound is more often positive in patients with DVT relative to those without DVT. Higher DOR indicates better discriminatory test performance. Thirty one studies were rated as potentially unbiased and graded as Level 1. The mean prevalence of DVT as determined by venography was 22%. In Level 1 studies, the odds of positive ultrasound in proximal veins was 379 times higher (95% confidence limits 65, 2,200) and in distal veins 32 times higher (7.5, 135) among patients with DVT than those without. Our results suggest that, particularly for proximal veins, ultrasound is accurate for the diagnosis of DVT in asymptomatic postoperative orthopedic patients. More research is needed in other clinical settings.

Background and Objectives-Data collection remains of utmost importance to avoid publication bias in systematic reviews. Our objectives were to compare search strategies with and without methodological terms in Medline, to find out how other databases complement Medline, and how these strategies affect the pooled estimates of the accuracy.Study Design and Setting-A study was eligible if it prospectively compared ultrasound to venography for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in the lower limbs. All relevant articles found with all databases, searched from 1966 through 2003, constitute the reference standard. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of relevant studies found by Medline searches divided by the total number of articles in the reference standard.Results-Of a total of 1,473 citations, 237 abstracts were included. The sensitivity of strategies without methodological terms was higher (96%) than those with (95%, 76%, and 95%). Searches of multiple databases found seven articles not found with Medline. Searches of congress proceedings (International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis) found three abstracts not published in full. The diagnostic odds ratio OR was 5.66 (95% confidence interval CI = 4.84-6.48) when multiple databases were searched and 5.57 (95% CI = 3.49-7.65) when only English-language articles in Medline were identified.Conclusion-Medline searches combining free text and MeSH terms were more sensitive. Single Medline search affects only marginally the pooled estimate accuracy.