Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 798


Home  | About Us | Editors | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit Article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 154-159

The acute care diagnostics collaboration: performance assessment of contrast-enhanced ultrasound compared to abdominal computed tomography and conventional ultrasound in an emergency trauma score bayesian clinical decision scheme

1 Department of Emergency Medicine, US Acute Care Solutions, Florida Hospital Tampa, Tampa, Florida, US; Pedro Henriquez Urena National University, Postgraduate Studies Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
2 University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Amado Alejandro Baez
Department of Emergency Medicine, US Acute Care Solutions, Florida Hospital Tampa, Tampa, Florida; Pedro Henriquez Urena National University, Postgraduate Studies Santo Domingo

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/IJCIIS.IJCIIS_7_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Bayes' theorem describes the probability of an event, based on conditions that might be related to the event.[1] We developed the Bayesian Diagnostic Gains (BDG) method as a simple tool for interpreting diagnostic impact.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] Aim: We aimed to evaluate the clinical diagnostic impact of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) compared to traditional abdominal computed tomography (CT) and standard ultrasound (US) in a Bayesian Clinical Decision Scheme. Materials and Methods: Our mathematical method uses Bayesian Diagnostic Gains (BDG) model. For the purposes of our model, the EMTRAS was used as pretest probability and stratified as low risk (0–3 points = 10%), moderate risk (4–6 points = 42%), and high risk (7–12 points = 80%) based on mortality risk. Sensitivity and specificity for US, CT, and CEUS were obtained from pooled data and used to calculate LR- and LR+. Bayesian/Fagan nomogram was used to attain posttest probabilities using baseline probability of an event on the first axis (PRE), with LR on the second axis, and read off the pos-test probability (POST) on the third axis. For the nomogram analysis, the pretest probability (Pre) scoring for the EMTRAS score was obtained using the original EMTRAS data. Posttest probabilities were obtained based on the Bayes/Fagan Nomgram. Relative diagnostic gain (RDG) and absolute diagnostic gain (ADG) were calculated based on the differences deducted from pre- and post-test probabilities. IBM® SPSS® Statistics 20 was used for analysis and modeling. ANOVA was used for association between EMTRAS, CT scan, and CEUS, where P value set at 0.05. Results: Pooled data for Sensitivity (Se), Specificity (Sp), LR+, and LR- were obtained for US (Se = 45.7%, Sp = 91.8%, LR+ = 5.57, and LR- = 0.59), CEUS (Se 91.4%, Sp 100%, LR+ 91, and LR-0.09), and CT (Se = 94.8%, SP = 98.7%, LR+ = 73, and LR- =0.05). ANOVA analysis for LR+ and LR- showed no significant difference (P < 0.8745 and P < 0.9841). Comparison of CT and CEUS did not yield statistically significant differences for LR+ (P < 0.1). Conclusion: In this Bayesian model, the diagnostic performance of CEUS was found to be similar to traditional abdominal CT. The greatest diagnostic gain was observed in low pretest positive LR groups.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded42    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal