MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2524531748 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.2377.2377

Comparison Of Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Venography For Diagnosis Of Catheter-Related Thrombosis In Children: A Multicenter Multinational Study

2013· article· en· W2524531748 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Christoph Male, Donald L. Yee, Christian Loewe, Rajesh Krishnamurthy, Elizabeth Chalmers, Jane W. Newburger, Luz-Margarita Ramirez, Ronald J. Portman, Lesley Mitchell

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAsymptomaticRadiologyCentral venous catheterMagnetic resonance imagingCatheterVenous thrombosisVenographyPopulationThrombosisSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Venous thrombotic events (VTE) in children are related to central venous catheters and occur predominantly in the upper venous system. In routine clinical practice, ultrasound (US) is the most frequently used imaging technique for diagnosis of VTE in children because of its ease of use and non-invasiveness. However, US is known to be relatively insensitive for detection of VTE in the central upper venous system. Magnetic resonance venography (MRV) is a promising alternative as MRV can comprehensively image the central venous system, is minimally invasive and does not involve radiation. However, MRV involves high technical and logistic demands, and requires sedation in young children. Objectives To compare the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of US and MRV for diagnosis of central venous catheter related VTE in children. Methods Study Design: Cross-sectional diagnostic study. Study population: Children 0-<18 years of age with a central venous catheter in place for any reason were recruited prospectively and consisted of i) children who are asymptomatic for VTE: children who were screened for central venous catheter-related VTE within 20-60 days of catheter placement ii) children who are symptomatic for VTE: children presenting with signs and symptoms of central venous catheter related VTE within 7 days of symptom onset (all study-related imaging tests were completed within this time period). Children were excluded in case of i) systemic anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, and ii) inability to undergo contrast MRV. Imaging tests: Each participant had three imaging tests performed i) Doppler compression US ii) MRV without contrast iii) MRV with gadolinium contrast. All imaging studies were performed within 48 hours of each other. Data collection included clinical and demographic information on each subject, imaging and video documentation of each US and MRV. Central Adjudication Committee: All imaging studies were blinded and independently reviewed and interpreted by a central adjudication committee for the presence or absence of VTE. Outcomes: The two main study outcomes were 1) Feasibility of performing each test: assessed by a) the number of children who completed each diagnostic study and b) the number of evaluable studies; and 2) Diagnostic accuracy of each diagnostic test: assessed by the proportion of VTE identified by the respective test in relation to the total number of VTE identified by any imaging modality. Results A total of 152 children were enrolled from 24 centers in 9 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Austria and Germany. The median age (range) for children was 11 years (2 months to 17 years). Fourteen (9.2%) children had clinical symptoms of VTE. One hundred and thirty three (88%) children had US completed, 113 (74%) had MRV without contrast and 113 (74%) had MRV with contrast. 18 subjects withdrew from the study before any test was performed for various reasons. Adjudication and analysis are ongoing, and will be completed by October 14th, 2013. Therefore, final results regarding the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of each test will be available at the time of presentation. Conclusion We have completed the largest and most comprehensive study to date comparing the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of currently available non-invasive imaging modalities for detecting central venous catheter related VTE in children. Ultrasound demonstrated better feasibility than MRV, however, MRV still proved feasible in nearly three-quarters of pediatric subjects and was performed without sedation in individuals as young as 2 months old. The overall feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of each test will be reported after final adjudication and analysis are complete. The study findings will be used to formulate an effective pediatric diagnostic algorithm for diagnosis of central venous catheter-related VTE. The algorithm will be used as guidance for clinical practice as well as outcome assessments for clinical trials of antithrombotic agents in children. Disclosures: Male: Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Yee:Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding. Loewe:Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Krishnamurthy:Koninklijke Philips NV: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Chalmers:Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Newburger:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmacutical: Consultancy; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Ramirez:Bristol Myer Squibb: Employment. Portman:Bristol Myer Squibb: Employment. Mitchell:Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,365
Écart entre enseignants0,327 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→Travaux en français237 207→