Cited by 275Abdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementOmental and Epiploic Conditions

The Diagnosis of Acute Mesenteric Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Cudnik, Michael T., Darbha, Subrahmanyam, Jones, Janice, Macedo, Julian, Stockton, Sherrill W., Hiestand, Brian C.·2013·Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Acute mesenteric ischemia is an infrequent cause of abdominal pain in emergency department (ED) patients; however, mortality for this condition is high. Rapid diagnosis and surgery are key to survival, but presenting signs are often vague or variable, and there is no pathognomonic laboratory screening test. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature was performed to determine diagnostic test characteristics of patient symptoms, objective signs, laboratory studies, and diagnostic modalities to help rule in or out the diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia in the ED. METHODS: In concordance with published guidelines for systematic reviews, the medical literature was searched for relevant articles. The Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for systematic reviews was used to evaluate the overall quality of the trials included. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were computed by using a random-effects model to combine studies. Those studies without data to fully complete a two-by-two table were not included in the meta-analysis portion of the project. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1,149 potentially relevant studies, of which 23 were included in the final analysis. The quality of the diagnostic studies was highly variable. A total of 1,970 patients were included in the combined population of all included studies. The prevalence of acute mesenteric ischemia ranged from 8% to 60%. There was a pooled sensitivity for l-lactate of 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 73% to 94%) and a pooled specificity of 44% (95% CI = 32% to 55%). There was a pooled sensitivity for D-dimer of 96% (95% CI = 89% to 99%) and a pooled specificity of 40% (95% CI = 33% to 47%). For computed tomography (CT), we found a pooled sensitivity of 94% (95% CI = 90% to 97%) and specificity of 95% (95% CI = 93% to 97%). The positive likelihood ratio (+LR) for a positive CT was 17.5 (95% CI = 5.99 to 51.29), and the negative likelihood ratio (-LR) was 0.09 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.17). The pooled operative mortality rate for mesenteric ischemia was 47% (95% CI = 40% to 54%). Given these findings, the test threshold of 2.1% (below this pretest probability, do not test further) and a treatment threshold of 74% (above this pretest probability, proceed to surgical management) were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the overall literature base for mesenteric ischemia is varied. Signs, symptoms, and laboratory testing are insufficiently diagnostic for the condition. Only CT angiography had adequate accuracy to establish the diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia in lieu of laparotomy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acem.12254

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Berland T, Oldenburg WA. Acute mesenteric ische- mia. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2008; 10:341-6.
  2. Patel A, Kaleya RN, Sammartano RJ. Pathophysiol- ogy of mesenteric ischemia. Surg Clin North Am. 1992; 72:31-41.
  3. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analy- sis of observational studies in epidemiology: a pro- posal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283:2008-12.
  4. Newman TB, Kohn MA. Critical Appraisal of Diag- nostic Tests. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cudnik, M. T., Darbha, S., Jones, J., Macedo, J., Stockton, S. W., & Hiestand, B. C.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Hiestand, Brian C.
Venue
Academic Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1087-1100
ISSN
1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056853802
Cited by
275
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal vascular conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Appendicitis Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Omental and Epiploic Conditions
Keywords
acute mesenteric ischemia, diagnostic accuracy, emergency department diagnosis, lactate, D-dimer, computed tomography, abdominal pain, diagnostic test characteristics, sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, postoperative mortality
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products, Humans, Ischemia, Lactates, Physical Examination, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Vascular Diseases, Biomarkers, Mesenteric Ischemia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review