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 |