Background Previous studies have examined the utility of ultrasonography performed by radiologists for diagnosing paediatric testicular torsion. While point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used in paediatric emergency medicine, its diagnostic accuracy is still unknown.
Objectives The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the accuracy of POCUS in diagnosing testicular torsion in children.
Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy guidelines, a systematic review was performed using the indices of MEDLINE, EMBASE plus EMBASE classics, PubMed and the Cochrane database from inception to November 2020. Any study investigating the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for paediatric testicular torsion was extracted. The primary outcome was the assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for paediatric testicular torsion. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Quality analysis was conducted using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).
Results Four studies enrolling 784 patients in total were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of POCUS were 98.4% (95% CI: 88.5% to 99.8%), 97.2% (95% CI: 87.2% to 99.4%), 34.7 (95% CI: 7.4 to 164.4) and 0.017 (95% CI: 0.002 to 0.12), respectively. Risk-of-bias assessment using QUADAS-2 revealed that two of the studies had a high risk of bias in patient selection.
Conclusion The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed that POCUS had high sensitivity and specificity for identifying testicular torsion in paediatric patients although the risk of bias was high in the studies analysed.
- pediatric emergency medicine
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Handling editor Steve Rothrock
Contributors TM conceptualised and designed the study, collected the data, carried out the initial analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. TI collected the data, supervised the initial analysis and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. ON critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript. TM accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish as quarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.