Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marin et al. 2013 Philadelphia, USA | "Convenience sample of 387 lesions in 348 children aged 2 months - 19 years presenting to the ED with signs of an isolated SSTI requiring treatment with systemic antibiotic therapy. This group had CE examination of the lesion by the treating physician who decided whether an abscess was clinically evident or not. Following this they had a US examination by a blinded study physician who recorded their findings. A control group of 442 lesions in 370 children had CE but no US performed. All groups were followed up for 2 days after discharge from the ED. " | Prospective Cohort Study | "1. Clinically evident lesions requiring drainage (defined as pus expressed at time of ED visit or within 2 days) " | "CE+US didn’t improve detection compared to CE alone. CE - 94.7% sensitivity, 84% specificity CE+US - 93.1% sensitivity, 81.4% specificity" | "Very short 2 day follow up could increase number of false negatives in lesions that may require drainage. Blinding methods not 100%" |
2. Lesions not clinically evident that may require drainage | "CE + US did improve detection CE 43.7% sensitivity, 42.0% specificity CE+US - 77.6% sensitivity, 61.3% specificity" | ||||
Iverson et al. 2011 Michigan, USA | "Convenience sample of 65 children (6months - 18 years) presenting to the Paediatric Emergency Department (PED) with clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of SSTI. This group had a clinical examination where a diagnosis of cellulitis vs. abscess was made along with a decision regarding the need for I&D. A blinded physician then performed a US scan." | Prospective Cohort Study | 1. The effect of bedside US on diagnosis of SSTI when compared to clinical examination alone. | "Small sample size No follow-up performed, no return hospital visits looked for - some patients may have returned. 9 US examinations (13%) poorly performed but still included in results. " | |
2. The effect of US on management of SSTI | |||||
Berger et al. 2011 California, USA | 40 adult ED patients seen and treated for SSTI suspicious for underlying abscess. All patients had a clinical examination of their lesion and then 2 US scans of the lesion - 1 by a senior clinician and 1 by a novice. | Prospective Observational Study | 1. The presence of pus expressed during I&D | "US sensitivity for positive I&D - 97% specificity - 67% CE sensitivity for positive I&D - 76% specificity -83%" | "Very small sample size - therefore results not statistically significant. No follow-up performed. Only patients with high suspicion of underlying abscess were included. |
2. The ability of a novice to detect abscess on US scan | Novices opinions agreed with senior clinicians in all but 1 patient (2.5%) | ||||
Sivitz et al. 2010 Rhode Island, USA | "50 children (under 18 years) presenting with an area of SSTI. These patients had assessment and documented management by treating physician which was either surgical (i.e. lesion requires I&D) or medical (IV or oral antibiotics). All patients then had a US scan performed. These results were then made aware to the treating physician who decided whether a management change was required. " | Prospective Observational Study | How often US changed the management of patients | "Surgically managed group (clinically evident lesion) - management changed in 30% Medically managed group (no clinically evident lesion) - management changed in 17%" | "Small number of patients with different numbers in surgical vs. medical management. Differences between study and treating clinicians - sometimes they were the same person. No blinding. No control group" |
"Specificity & sensitivity of original clinical examination & management plan compared to US. Positive I&D used as gold standard for abscess diagnosis. Unsuccessful drainage or uneventful follow-up = no abscess." | "CE had 75% sensitivity & 80% specificity. US had 90% sensitivity & 83% specificity. " | ||||
Tayal et al. 2006 North Carolina, USA | Convenience sample of 126 adult patients presenting to the ED with evidence of cutaneous tissue infection. Treating physicians performed CE and decided whether lesions required drainage. Lesions then had US scan and management plan was reviewed. | Prospective Observational Study | How often US changed the management of patients | "Lesions thought to require drainage on CE - management changed in 73% Lesions not thought to require drainage on CE - management changed in 48% " | "Small number of patients. No blinding. No control group. |
Squire et al. 2005 California, USA | Convenience sample of 135 adult patients presenting to the ED with signs of soft tissue infection. The physician performed CE and then recorded whether they believed an abscess was present. Treating physicians then performed US scans. | "Prospective Clinical Trial " | 1. Detection of true abscess (confirmed by either obtaining pus on I&D or failure of lesion to resolve) | "CE - 86% sensitivity, 70% specificity. CE + US - 98% sensitivity, 88% specificity" | "High proportion of patients (20%) lost to follow up. Differences in experience of staff performing US examinations. Not blinded. No control group. |
2. How often US changed the diagnosis to correct one | Diagnosis changed in 18 cases. US was correct for 17 of these (94%) | ||||
Nisha et al. 2013 Chennai, India | 34 patients (aged 14-71) with odontogenic infections involved the superficial and deep fascial spaces of the head and neck. All lesions had US examination. Those deemed to be cellulitis on CE + US had medical management. Those deemed to be abscess had surgical exploration | Diagnostic Study | "Cellulitis - whether lesion resolved with 5 days of antibiotics. Abscess - The presence of pus on surgical exploration" | "Clinical examination had a sensitivity of 0.65 and specificity 0.32 Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 1.0 and a specificity of 0.957" | "Small study size and therefore results may not be statistically significant. No information about who performed the US scans. Doesn’t appear to be blinded. No control group. Cases of cellulitis excluded from sensitivity and specificity analysis of US! |