Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:25:41.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of emergency department targeted ultrasonography in the evaluation of first-trimester pelvic pain and bleeding: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Andrew McRae ,
Marcia Edmonds  and
Heather Murray
Andrew McRae*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Marcia Edmonds
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Heather Murray
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Rd., London ON N6A 5W9; andrew.mcrae@lhsc.on.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Emergency department targeted ultrasonography (EDTU) offers the possibility of rapid exclusion of ectopic pregnancy in patients with first-trimester pelvic pain or bleeding. We sought to systematically review the evidence describing the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of EDTU in the first trimester of pregnancy, and to generate a pooled estimate of the sensitivity and specificity of EDTU for the detection of intrauterine pregnancy (IUP).

Methods:

The literature search, abstract review and study selection were performed using predefined criteria. We abstracted the sensitivity and specificity of EDTU for IUP from included studies, and evaluated and summarized the evidence assessing the effect of EDTU use on time to diagnosis, time to treatment of ectopic pregnancy, emergency department (ED) length of stay and health care costs.

Results:

The specificity of EDTU for IUP in most studies exceeds 98%. The sensitivity in most studies exceeds 90%. Pooled estimates were not calculated because of statistical heterogeneity between studies. Published evidence indicates that EDTU use reduces the frequency of missed ectopic pregnancies, decreases time to surgery for ectopic pregnancy, shortens the length of stay for patients with normal pregnancies and may be more cost-effective than diagnostic strategies requiring formal ultrasonography.

Conclusion:

EDTU is highly specific for the identification of IUP. Patients who have an IUP identified with EDTU may be safely discharged from the ED with outpatient follow-up. The specificity of EDTU for IUP, along with the potential improvements in patient care that EDTU affords, justifies its adoption as routine ED care in evaluating first-trimester pain or bleeding.

Keywords

ultrasoundultrasonographyectopic pregnancyspontaneous abortionemergency medicine
Type
State of the Art • Á la fine pointe
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , July 2009 , pp. 355 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2009

References

REFERENCES

1. Rosen, CL, Wolfe, RW. Ultrasound in emergency medicine. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2004;22:XV–XVI.Google Scholar
2. Murray, H, Baakdah, H, Bardell, T, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. CMAJ 2005;173:905–12.Google Scholar
3. Moore, C, Promes, SB. Ultrasound in pregnancy. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2004;22:697–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP policy statement: emergency ultrasound guidelines. Available: http://www.acep.org/practres.aspx?id=32182&ekmensel=c580fa7b_90_202_32182_21 (accessed 2008 Aug 08).Google Scholar
5. Canadian Emergency Ultrasound Society. Canadian emergency ultrasound society: recommended standards. Available: http://www.ceus.ca/002-standards/002-00.standards.htm (accessed 2008 Jul 29).Google Scholar
6. Whiting, PF, Weswood, MF, Rutjes, AW, et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies [abstract]. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Guyatt, G, Cook, D, Devereaux, PJ, et al. Therapy. In: Guyatt, G, Rennie, D, editors. User’s guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago (IL): AMA Press; 2002. p. 55–79.Google Scholar
8. Wilson, EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1927;22:209–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Deville, WL, Buntinx, F, Bouter, LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodology 2002;2:9.Google Scholar
10. Simon, S. Stats: meta-analysis for a diagnostic test. Available: http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats/training/hand67.asp (accessed 2009 May 27).Google Scholar
11. Durham, B, Lane, B, Burbidge, L, et al. Pelvic ultrasound performed by emergency physicians in the detection of ectopic pregnancy in complicated first-trimester pregnancies. Ann Emerg Med 1997;29:338–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Mateer, JR, Valley, VT, Aiman, EJ, et al. Outcome analysis of a protocol including bedside endovaginal sonography in patients at risk for ectopic pregnancy. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:283–9.Google Scholar
13. Wong, TW, Lau, CC, Yeung, A, et al. Efficacy of transabdominal ultrasound examination in the diagnosis of early pregnancy complications in an emergency department. J Accid Emerg Med 1998;15:155–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Rodgerson, JD, Heegaard, WG, Plummer, D, et al. Emergency department right upper quadrant ultrasound is associated with a reduced time to diagnosis and treatment of ruptured ectopic pregnancies. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:331–6.Google Scholar
15. Blaivas, M, Bell, G. Benefit from emergency physician identified ectopic pregnancy using bedside ultrasound [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:500.Google Scholar
16. Pierce, DL, Friedman, KD, Killian, A, et al. Emergency department ultrasonography (EUS) in symptomatic first-trimester pregnancy [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:546.Google Scholar
17. Shih, CH. Effect of emergency physician-performed pelvic sonography on length of stay in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1997;29:348–51.Google Scholar
18. Blaivas, M, Sierzenski, P, Plecque, D, et al. Do emergency physicians save time when locating a live intrauterine pregnancy with bedside ultrasonography? Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:988–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Burgher, SW, Tandy, TK, Dawdy, MR. Transvaginal ultrasonography by emergency physicians decreases patient time in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5:802–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Jang, TB, Aubin, CD. Resident ultrasonography in symptomatic first-trimester pregnancy and emergency department length of stay. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:S88–9.Google Scholar
21. Durston, WE, Carl, ML, Guerra, W, et al. Ultrasound availability in the evaluation of ectopic pregnancy in the ED: Comparison of quality and cost-effectiveness with different approaches. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:408–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Todd, WM, Moore, CL, O’Brien, E, et al. Risk stratification of suspected ectopic pregnancy by transabdominal emergency physician-performed ultrasonography. Ann Emerg Med 2004;44:S82–3.Google Scholar
23. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. CAEP roadshows: emergency department targeted ultrasound. Available: http://www.caep.ca/template.asp?id=8B793B0F46CE4083AB4E7 75BE6D6A412 (accessed 2009 May 27).Google Scholar
24. Chen, S, Hussereau, D, Noorani, H, et al. Portable ultrasound devices in emergency departments. Technology report issue 63. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2006.Google Scholar
25. Schlager, D, Lazzareschi, G, Whitten, D, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the ED by emergency physicians. Am J Emerg Med 1994;12:185–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Mettler, F. Jr. Intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy. In: Essentials of radiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Elsevier; 2005. p. 240–3.Google Scholar
27. Stephen, R, Richards, LES, Carlton, BD. Heterotopic gestation: reappraisal of incidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:928–30.Google Scholar
28. DeVoe, RW, Pratt, JH. Simultaneous intrauterine and extrauterine pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1948;56:1119–26.Google Scholar
29. Tal, J, Haddad, S, Gordon, N, et al. Heterotopic pregnancy after ovulation induction and assisted reproductive technologies: a literature review from 1971 to 1993. Fertil Steril 1996;66:1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
30. Montori, V, Guyatt, G. Publication bias. In: Guyatt, G, Rennie, D, editors. Users’ guides to the medical literature. Chicago (IL): AMA Press; 2002:529–537.Google Scholar
31. Hopewell, S, McDonald, S, Clark, M, et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000010.Google Scholar