Abstract：
Pleural effusion is a very common clinical finding. Quantifying pleural effusion volume and its response to treatment over time has become increasingly important for clinicians, which is currently performed via computed tomography (CT) or drainage. To determine and compare ultrasonography (US), CT, and drainage agreements in pleural effusion volumetry. Protocol pre-registration was performed a priori at ( https://osf.io/rnugd/ ). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies up to January 7, 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), QUADAS-C, and Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Volumetric performances of CT, US, and drainage in assessment of pleural effusion volume were evaluated through both aggregated data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) analyses. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Six studies were included with 446 pleural effusion lesions. AD results showed a perfect level of agreement with pooled Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.933 and 0.948 between US and CT. IPD results demonstrated a high level of agreement between US and CT, with Finn\'s coefficient, ICC, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Pearson correlation coefficient values of 0.856, 0.855, 0.854, and 0.860, respectively. Also, both results showed an overall perfect level of agreement between US and drainage. As for comparing the three combinations, US vs. CT and US vs. drainage were both superior to CT vs. drainage, suggesting the US is a good option for pleural effusion volumetric assessment. Ultrasound provides a highly reliable, to-the-point, cost-effective, and noninvasive method for the assessment of pleural effusion volume and is a great alternative to CT or drainage.
摘要：
胸腔积液是非常常见的临床发现。随着时间的推移，量化胸腔积液量及其对治疗的反应对临床医生来说变得越来越重要。目前通过计算机断层扫描（CT）或引流进行。为了确定和比较超声检查（US），CT,和胸腔积液容积测定中的引流协议。协议预注册在(https://osf.io/rnugd/)进行。我们搜索了PubMed,WebofScience,Embase,和Cochrane图书馆进行截至2024年1月7日的研究。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估2（QUADAS-2）评估偏倚风险，QUADAS-C,和基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)。CT的体积性能,US,通过汇总数据(AD)和个体参与者数据(IPD)分析,评估胸腔积液体积的引流.使用建议分级评估证据的确定性，评估,发展,和评价（等级）。包括六项研究，包括446个胸腔积液病变。AD结果显示，US和CT之间的Pearson相关性和组内相关系数（ICC）为0.933和0.948，具有完美的一致性。IPD结果证明了美国和CT之间的高度一致性，与Finn的系数，ICC,一致性相关系数(CCC)，和皮尔逊相关系数值分别为0.856、0.855、0.854和0.860。此外，这两个结果表明，美国和排水之间的总体一致性是完美的。至于比较这三种组合，美国vs.CT和USvs.引流均优于CT。排水,表明美国是胸腔积液体积评估的一个好选择。超声波提供了一个高度可靠的，直截了当，成本效益高,和无创的方法来评估胸腔积液的体积，是一个伟大的替代CT或引流。
