Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Karnwal et al 2008 UK | Patients referred to ENT with a history of non-aspirated upper aero-digestive tract foreign body with a lateral soft tissue neck x-ray taken on admission | Retrospective study | To assess value of lateral soft tissue neck x-ray in these patients | X-ray \\\'useful\\\' in 51% cases. 24 patients with positive x-rays (foreign body seen in 6, \\\'soft signs\\\' seen in all 24). 8 negative x-rays in radiopaque foreign bodies | No statistical analysis. Results unclear: \\\'soft signs\\\' seen in all 27 radiopaque foreign bodies but only 8 x-rays \\\'positive\\\'. No description of how x-ray aided patient management. |
Marais et al 1995 UK | Patients with suspected oro/hypopharyngeal foreign body impaction attending ED with lateral soft tissue neck x-rays, referred to ENT. All patients had negative direct laryngoscopy and proceeded to endoscopy | Double-blind controlled study | To establish accuracy in interpretation of lateral soft tissue neck x-rays among ENT, ED and radiology doctors | Foreign body correctly identified in 39% (ENT), 42% (ED) and 34% (radiology) cases. False positive foreign body diagnosis in 26% (ENT), 34% (ED) and 19% (radiology) cases. | No statistical analysis |
Wai Pak et al 2001 Hong Kong | All patients 12yrs and below, presenting with a history of foreign body ingestion to ED. All patients managed as per hospital protocol. | Prospective study | To evaluate the clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of foreign body ingestion in children | All (311) patients had neck x-rays. 115 children had foreign body impaction. 19/308 x-rays were positive or suspicious of foreign body. Sensitivity of neck x-ray 15.9%, specificity 99.5% | 3 x-rays excluded due to \\\'poor quality\\\', which may have influenced their interpretation. Unclear who interpreted x-rays and whether interpreted pre- of post-endoscopy |