Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 12;2018(12):CD012669. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012669.pub2

Becker 2010.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling Retrospective study
Patient characteristics and setting Study location: Miami, USA
Study period: 2000 to 2005
Care setting: level 1 trauma centre
Mass casualty: no
Participants enrolled: 3181: 2274 men and 907 women
Participants included in analysis: 3181
Age: mean age 39 ± 19 years
Type of injury: abdominal trauma
Injury severity: ISS 22.9 ± 18
Haemodynamic stability: stable conditions
Inclusion criteria: blunt trauma patients who underwent both US as a part of initial assessment and CT scan of the abdomen. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their ISS: Group 1: ISS 1 to 14; Group 2: ISS 16 to 24; Group 3: ISS ≥ 25 (group allocation is reported as in the published reports ‐ the trialists did not say what happened to patients who had an ISS = 15). Age, gender, mechanism of injury, physiologic parameters, laboratory test results, ISS, radiology reports, and all applied procedures were retrospectively reviewed by the study team.
Exclusion criteria: penetrating trauma, no US examination or CT scan
Index tests Index test: FAST
US protocol: trauma team members performed US examinations on all blunt trauma participants in the resuscitation bay. The US was obtained with the participant in supine position by the attending, trauma fellow, or resident. A positive US examination was considered to be a true positive if the CT scan revealed free fluid, and considered to be a false positive if free fluid was not confirmed at the subsequent CT scan. Negative US findings were counted as true negatives if the CT scan was negative and the participant had an uneventful course, and considered to be a false negative if the participant had a negative US and positive CT examination or was operated on and felt to have a therapeutic laparotomy.
Hardware used: Aloka SSD 1000 (Aloka Co Ltd, Wallingford, CT) with a 3.5‐MHz curved probe
Description of imaging technique: 4 areas were examined: perihepatic, perisplenic, pelvic, and pericardial
Target condition and reference standard(s) Target condition: free fluid
Reference standard: CT (CT technique not specified), laparotomy
Description of technique: not reported
Flow and timing Time between US and reference standard: not reported
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? No    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
    Unclear Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
Was the qualification of the US operator appropriate? Unclear    
Was the US hardware (i.e. generation, manufacturer, probe, etc.) up to date? Yes    
Was the US protocol (i.e. 'classic' FAST) appropriate? Yes    
Are there concerns that the definition or performance of the index test (i.e. POC US of trauma) do not match generally accepted, established, or practiced rules or recommendations? No    
    Low Low
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear    
Was the qualification of the doctors (i.e. radiologists, surgeons, etc.) determining the reference standard appropriate? Unclear    
Was the reference imaging standard (i.e. MDCT‐rows (4 to ≥ 256 slices), contrast‐imaging, etc.) up to date? Yes    
Are there concerns that the definition or performance of the reference tests (e.g. CT, MRI, laparatomy, thoracotomy, autopsy, etc.) do not match generally accepted, established, or practiced rules or recommendations? Unclear    
    Unclear Unclear
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? No    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Did all participants receive a reference standard? (Risk of partial verification bias) Yes    
    Unclear