Accuracy of lung ultrasonography in the hands of non-imaging specialists to diagnose and assess the severity of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review

Abstract

ObjectivesWe aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients.Materials and methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.ResultsWe included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or ‘speciality not described’. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionWe found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding.PROSPERO registration numberProspectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804).

Point-of-care ultrasound for tuberculosis management in Sub-Saharan Africa—a balanced SWOT analysis

“…(Ndege et al 2020) Poor standardization of skills POCUS is now rapidly being adopted by non-radiologist clinicians. Many studies therefore compare the skills of the clinician with that of the radiologist and often show encouraging outcomes (Strøm et al 2020). These results, however, do not guarantee safe POCUS practices.…”

Quality of focused thoracic ultrasound performed by emergency medical technicians and paramedics in a prehospital setting: a feasibility study

“…The Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and paramedics (PMs) are in charge of the management including initial evaluation, treatment, and making decisions regarding time spend on the scene, transport, and location [7]. Most often, the decisions are based on patient history, vital signs, and few objective examinations like auscultation [6,8,9]. Making ultrasound available for the EMTs and PMs creates a new option for assessment of the patient.…”

The use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19

“…There is no consensus regarding the amount of training or level of competence needed to perform LUS [80]. A systematic review found a limited number of high-quality studies about LUS training and recommended further research with validated theoretical and practical tests for assessment [81].…”