Evidence Hub

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-organ point-of-care ultrasound for pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

R. Melo, L. Gioli-Pereira, Igor Dovorake Lourenço, Rogério da Hora Passos, A. Bernardo, Giovanni Volpicelli

Critical Care, 2025

594 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

The clinical presentation of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) can range from mild symptoms to severe shock, circulatory arrest and even death, thereby presenting with a significant high mortality when undiagnosed. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold-standard imaging modality for diagnosing PE, however, it has several practical limitations and is not widely available in low-income country settings. In this context, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a valuable bedside, non-invasive diagnostic tool. This meta-analysis assesses the accuracy of multi-organ POCUS for diagnosing PE in critical care settings. We conducted a systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases for studies comparing multi-organ POCUS with CTPA or ventilation-perfusion scans for PE diagnosis in critical care departments. Two reviewers independently completed search, data abstraction and conducted quality assessment with QUADAS-2 tool. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. We used a bivariate model of random effects to summarize pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC). Four studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 594 patients. The mean age of participants ranged from 55.2 to 71 years. Prevalence of PE ranged from 28 to 66.2%. CTPA was the primary reference standard used in most studies.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 594 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free