TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy
AU - Patel, Payal
AU - Braun, Cody
AU - Patel, Parth
AU - Bhatt, Meha
AU - Begum, Housne
AU - Wiercioch, Wojtek
AU - Varghese, Jamie
AU - Wooldridge, David
AU - Alturkmani, Hani J.
AU - Thomas, Merrill
AU - Baig, Mariam
AU - Bahaj, Waled
AU - Khatib, Rasha
AU - Kehar, Rohan
AU - Ponnapureddy, Rakesh
AU - Sethi, Anchal
AU - Mustafa, Ahmad
AU - Lim, Wendy
AU - Le Gal, Grégoire
AU - Bates, Shannon M.
AU - Lang, Eddy
AU - Righini, Marc
AU - Husainat, Nedaa M.
AU - Kalot, Mohamad A.
AU - Al Jabiri, Yazan Nayif
AU - Nieuwlaat, Robby
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.
PY - 2020/6/9
Y1 - 2020/6/9
N2 - Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for ≤10% of DVT and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Accurate diagnosis and treatment are necessary for safe and effective patient management. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of D-dimer and duplex ultrasonography (US) for the evaluation of suspected first-episode UEDVT. We searched the Cochrane Central Register, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included prospective cross-sectional and cohort studies that evaluated test accuracy. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 9 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52), respectively. The pooled estimates for duplex US sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-0.94) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93), respectively. Certainty of evidence was moderate. In this review, we summarized the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of D-dimer and duplex US for this indication. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests found in the present review should be considered in the context of whether they are used alone or in combination, which is dependent on the prevalence of disease in the population, the clinical setting in which the patient is being evaluated, cost, potential harms, and patient outcomes.
AB - Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for ≤10% of DVT and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Accurate diagnosis and treatment are necessary for safe and effective patient management. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of D-dimer and duplex ultrasonography (US) for the evaluation of suspected first-episode UEDVT. We searched the Cochrane Central Register, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included prospective cross-sectional and cohort studies that evaluated test accuracy. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 9 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52), respectively. The pooled estimates for duplex US sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-0.94) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93), respectively. Certainty of evidence was moderate. In this review, we summarized the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of D-dimer and duplex US for this indication. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests found in the present review should be considered in the context of whether they are used alone or in combination, which is dependent on the prevalence of disease in the population, the clinical setting in which the patient is being evaluated, cost, potential harms, and patient outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087763645&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001409
DO - 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001409
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32511715
AN - SCOPUS:85087763645
SN - 2473-9529
VL - 4
SP - 2516
EP - 2522
JO - Blood Advances
JF - Blood Advances
IS - 11
ER -