MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571436424 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013688

In patients presenting to the emergency department with skin and soft tissue infections what is the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of abscess compared to the current standard of care? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2571436424 on OpenAlex
David Barbic, Jordan Chenkin, Dennis D. Cho, Tomislav Jelić, Frank Scheuermeyer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentUltrasonographyAbscessPoint of careSoft tissueRadiologyIntensive care medicinePathologySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in diagnosing abscess in emergency department (ED) patients with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI). The secondary objective was the accuracy of POCUS in the paediatric population subgroup. SETTING: Prospective studies set in emergency departments. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department patients (adult and paediatric) presenting with SSTI and suspected abscess. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: This systematic review was conducted according to Cochrane Handbook guidelines, and the following databases were searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (1946-2015). We included prospective cohort and case-control studies investigating ED patients with SSTI and abscess or cellulitis, a defined POCUS protocol, a clearly defined gold standard for abscess and a contingency table describing sensitivity and specificity. Two reviewers independently ascertained all potentially relevant citations for methodologic quality according to QUADAS-2 criteria. The primary outcome measure was the sensitivity and specificity of POCUS for abscess. A preplanned subgroup (secondary) analysis examined the effects in paediatric populations, and changes in management were explored post hoc. RESULTS: Of 3028 articles, 8 were identified meeting inclusion criteria; all were rated as good to excellent according to QUADAS-2 criteria. Combined test characteristics of POCUS on the ED diagnosis of abscess for patients with SSTI were as follows: sensitivity 96.2% (95% CI 91.1% to 98.4%), specificity 82.9% (95% CI 60.4% to 93.9%), positive likelihood ratio 5.63 (95% CI 2.2 to 14.6) and negative likelihood ratio 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: A total of 8 studies of good-to-excellent quality were included in this review. The use of POCUS helps differentiate abscess from cellulitis in ED patients with SSTI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017115.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it