Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) lung ultrasound (LUS) is widely used in the emergency setting and there is an established evidence base across a range of respiratory diseases, including previous viral epidemics. The necessity for rapid testing combined with the limitations of other diagnostic tests has led to the proposal of various potential roles for LUS during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused specifically on the diagnostic accuracy of LUS in adult patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Traditional and grey-literature searches were performed on 1 June 2021. Two authors independently carried out the searches, selected studies and completed the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was carried out using established open-source packages in R. We report overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve for LUS. Heterogeneity was determined using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included, published between October 2020 and April 2021, providing data from a total of 4314 patients. The prevalence and admission rates were generally high across all studies. Overall, LUS was found to be 87.2% sensitive (95% CI 83.6 to 90.2) and 69.5% specific (95% CI 62.2 to 72.5) and demonstrated overall positive and negative likelihood ratios of 3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.1) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22), respectively. Separate analyses for each reference standard revealed similar sensitivities and specificities for LUS. Heterogeneity was found to be high across the studies. Overall, the quality of studies was low with a high risk of selection bias due to convenience sampling. There were also applicability concerns because all studies were undertaken during a period of high prevalence. CONCLUSION: During a period of high prevalence, LUS had a sensitivity of 87% for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. However, more research is required to confirm these results in more generalisable populations, including those less likely to be admitted to hospital. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021250464.

Ultrasound of bone fractures.

The World Health Organisation estimates only 33% of the world's population has local access to diagnostic imaging. Doctors operating in austere locations in Canada and Australia are using point-of-care ultrasound to differentiate between bone injury and soft tissue injury. Studies have demonstrated ultrasound to be a highly sensitive diagnostic tool for bone fracture. We present an ultrasound pictorial review of various bone fractures to demonstrate its value as an extension of the clinical examination in identifying fracture and to support the need for further imaging. Innovative and affordable ultrasound devices have been developed, which will improve accessibility to imaging.

The utility of lung ultrasound in COVID-19: A systematic scoping review.

Introduction: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has an established evidence base and has proven useful in previous viral epidemics. An understanding of the utility of LUS in COVID-19 is crucial to determine its most suitable role based on local circumstances. Method: Online databases, specialist websites and social media platforms were searched to identify studies that explore the utility of LUS in COVID-19. Case reports and recommendations were excluded. Findings: In total, 33 studies were identified which represent a rapidly expanding evidence base for LUS in COVID-19. The quality of the included studies was relatively low; however, LUS certainly appears to be a highly sensitive and fairly specific test for COVID-19 in all ages and in pregnancy. Discussion: There may be LUS findings and patterns that are relatively specific to COVID-19; however, specificity may also be influenced by factors such as disease severity, pre-existing lung disease, operator experience, disease prevalence and the reference standard. Conclusion: LUS is almost certainly more sensitive than chest radiograph for COVID-19 and has several advantages over computed tomography and real-time polymerase chain reaction. High-quality research is needed into various aspects of LUS including: diagnostic accuracy in undifferentiated patients; triage and prognostication; monitoring progression and guiding interventions; the persistence of residual LUS findings; inter-observer agreement and the role of contrast-enhanced LUS.