...
首页> 外文期刊>Anaesthesia: Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland >Bedside tests for predicting difficult airways: an abridged Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
【24h】

Bedside tests for predicting difficult airways: an abridged Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review

机译:预测困难气道的床头旁试验:伸缩的Cochrane诊断测试精度系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Although bedside screening tests are routinely used to identify people at high risk of having a difficult airway, their clinical utility is unclear. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used bedside examination tests for assessing the airway in adult patients without apparent anatomical abnormalities scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia. We searched for studies that reported our pre-specified bedside index screening tests against a reference standard, published in any language, from date of inception to 16 December 2016, in seven bibliographic databases. We included 133 studies (127 cohort type and 6 case-control) involving 844,206 participants. Overall, their methodological quality (according to QUADAS-2, a standard tool for assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies) was moderate to high. Our pre-specified tests were: the Mallampati test (6 studies); modified Mallampati test (105 studies); Wilson risk score (6 studies); thyromental distance (52 studies); sternomental distance (18 studies); mouth opening test (34 studies); and the upper lip bite test (30 studies). Difficult facemask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult intubation and failed intubation were the reference standards in seven, 92, 50 and two studies, respectively. Across all reference standards, we found all index tests had relatively low sensitivities, with high variability, but specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities. For difficult laryngoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity (95%CI) of the upper lip bite test were 0.67 (0.45-0.83) and 0.92 (0.86-0.95), respectively; upper lip bite test sensitivity (95%CI) was significantly higher than that for the mouth opening test (0.22, 0.13-0.33; p < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, the modified Mallampati test had a significantly higher sensitivity (95%CI) at 0.51 (0.40-0.61) compared with mouth opening (0.27, 0.16-0.41; p < 0.001) and thyromental distance (0.24, 0.12-0.43; p < 0.001). Although the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties, none of the common bedside screening tests is well suited for detecting unanticipated difficult airways, as many of them are missed.
机译:虽然床头筛查试验经常用于识别具有困难风险的人,但它们的临床效用尚不清楚。我们估计了常用床头检查试验的诊断准确性,用于评估成人患者的通气道,没有明显的解剖异常,计划进行全身麻醉。我们搜索了向七届书目数据库中成立于2016年12月16日之前发表的参考标准的预先指定床边指数筛查测试的研究。我们包括133项研究(127个队列类型和6个病例控制),涉及844,206名参与者。总体而言,它们的方法论质量(根据Quadas-2,评估诊断准确性研究质量的标准工具)中度至高。我们预先指定的测试是:Mallampati测试(6研究);改性Mallampati测试(105项研究);威尔逊风险得分(6项研究);甲基化距离(52项研究);纹理距离(18项研究);口开口试验(34项研究);和上唇咬试验(30研究)。困难的面罩通风,困难的喉镜,插管困难,插管失败分别是七,92,50和两项研究中的参考标准。在所有参考标准中,我们发现所有指数测试都具有相对较低的敏感性,具有高的可变性,但特异性始终如一,明显高于敏感性。对于困难的喉镜检查,上唇咬合试验的敏感性和特异性(95%CI)分别为0.67(0.45-0.83)和0.92(0.86-0.95);上唇咬合测试敏感性(95%CI)显着高于口开口试验(0.22,0.13-0.33; P <0.001)。对于气管插管的难度,改性的MALLAMPATI测试与口开口(0.27,0.16-0.41; p <0.001)和甲基距离(0.24,0.12-0.43(0.24,0.12-0.43 ; p <0.001)。虽然上唇咬合试验显示出最有利的诊断测试精度特性,但普通床头旁筛选试验都没有非常适合检测意外的困难气道,因为它们中的许多都错过了。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号