Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Oct 3:5:6.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2342-5-6.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis

Steve Goodacre  1 , Fiona Sampson, Steve Thomas, Edwin van Beek, Alex Sutton
Affiliations

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis

Steve Goodacre et al. BMC Med Imaging. .

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound (US) has largely replaced contrast venography as the definitive diagnostic test for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to derive a definitive estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of US for clinically suspected DVT and identify study-level factors that might predict accuracy.

Methods: We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of diagnostic cohort studies that compared US to contrast venography in patients with suspected DVT. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, the ACP Journal Club, and citation lists (1966 to April 2004). Random effects meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Random effects meta-regression was used to identify study-level covariates that predicted diagnostic performance.

Results: We identified 100 cohorts comparing US to venography in patients with suspected DVT. Overall sensitivity for proximal DVT (95% confidence interval) was 94.2% (93.2 to 95.0), for distal DVT was 63.5% (59.8 to 67.0), and specificity was 93.8% (93.1 to 94.4). Duplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.5% (95.1 to 97.6) for proximal DVT, 71.2% (64.6 to 77.2) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.0% (92.8 to 95.1). Triplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.4% (94.4 to 97.1%) for proximal DVT, 75.2% (67.7 to 81.6) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.3% (92.5 to 95.8). Compression US alone had pooled sensitivity of 93.8 % (92.0 to 95.3%) for proximal DVT, 56.8% (49.0 to 66.4) for distal DVT and specificity of 97.8% (97.0 to 98.4). Sensitivity was higher in more recently published studies and in cohorts with higher prevalence of DVT and more proximal DVT, and was lower in cohorts that reported interpretation by a radiologist. Specificity was higher in cohorts that excluded patients with previous DVT. No studies were identified that compared repeat US to venography in all patients. Repeat US appears to have a positive yield of 1.3%, with 89% of these being confirmed by venography.

Conclusion: Combined colour-doppler US techniques have optimal sensitivity, while compression US has optimal specificity for DVT. However, all estimates are subject to substantial unexplained heterogeneity. The role of repeat scanning is very uncertain and based upon limited data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of studies considered for the review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of sensitivity.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of specificity.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot for sensitivity.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plot for specificity.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Sampson FC, Goodacre S, Kelly AM, Kerr D. How is deep vein thrombosis diagnosed and managed in UK and Australian emergency departments? Emerg Med J. 2005. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kearon C, Julian JA, Newman TE, Ginsberg JS. Noninvasive diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. McMaster Diagnostic Imaging Practice Guidelines Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:663–77. - PubMed
    1. Lijmer JG, Mol JJ, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, van der Meulen JHP, Bossuyt PMM. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.11.1061. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Song FJ, Khan KS, Dinnes J, Sutton AJ. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Inter J Epidemiol. 2002;31:88–95. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.88. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kassai B, Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Sonie S, Shah NR, Leizorovicz A. A systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in asymptomatic patients. Thromb Haemost. 2004;91:655–66. - PMC - PubMed