The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis
Open accessAbstract
Background: Ultrasound (US) has largely replaced contrast venography as the definitive diagnostic test for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to derive a definitive estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of US for clinically suspected DVT and identify study-level factors that might predict accuracy. Methods: We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of diagnostic cohort studies that compared US to contrast venography in patients with suspected DVT. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, the ACP Journal Club, and citation lists (1966 to April 2004). Random effects meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Random effects meta-regression was used to identify study-level covariates that predicted diagnostic performance. Results: We identified 100 cohorts comparing US to venography in patients with suspected DVT. Overall sensitivity for proximal DVT (95% confidence interval) was 94.2% (93.2 to 95.0), for distal DVT was 63.5% (59.8 to 67.0), and specificity was 93.8% (93.1 to 94.4). Duplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.5% (95.1 to 97.6) for proximal DVT, 71.2% (64.6 to 77.2) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.0% (92.8 to 95.1). Triplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.4% (94.4 to 97.1%) for proximal DVT, 75.2% (67.7 to 81.6) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.3% (92.5 to 95.8). Compression US alone had pooled sensitivity of 93.8 % (92.0 to 95.3%) for proximal DVT, 56.8% (49.0 to 66.4) for distal DVT and specificity of 97.8% (97.0 to 98.4). Sensitivity was higher in more recently published studies and in cohorts with higher prevalence of DVT and more proximal DVT, and was lower in cohorts that reported interpretation by a radiologist. Specificity was higher in cohorts that excluded patients with previous DVT. No studies were identified that compared repeat US to venography in all patients. Repeat US appears to have a positive yield of 1.3%, with 89% of these being confirmed by venography. Conclusion: Combined colour-doppler US techniques have optimal sensitivity, while compression US has optimal specificity for DVT. However, all estimates are subject to substantial unexplained heterogeneity. The role of repeat scanning is very uncertain and based upon limited data.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Cited by
Bates, S. M., Jaeschke, R., Stevens, S. M., Goodacre, S., Wells, P. S., Stevenson, M. D., Kearon, C., Schunemann, H. J., Crowther, M., Pauker, S. G., et al. (2012) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.11-2299 · Cited by 686
Self-citationMazzolai, L., Aboyans, V., Ageno, W., Agnelli, G., Alatri, A., Bauersachs, R., Brekelmans, M. P. A., Büller, H. R., Elias, A., Farge, D., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx003 · Cited by 402
Needleman, L., Cronan, J. J., Lilly, M. P., Merli, G. J., Adhikari, S., Hertzberg, B. S., DeJong, M. R., Streiff, M. B., & Meissner, M. H. (2018) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.117.030687 · Cited by 322
Hudelist, G., English, J., Thomas, A. E., Tinelli, A., Singer, C. F., & Keckstein, J. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.8858 · Cited by 270
The continuing evolution of cardiac troponin I biomarker analysis: from protein to proteoform
Soetkamp, D., Raedschelders, K., Mastali, M., Sobhani, K., Bairey Merz, C. N., & Van Eyk, J. (2017) · Expert Review of Proteomics · doi:10.1080/14789450.2017.1387054 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodacre, S., Sampson, F., Thomas, S., van Beek, E., & Sutton, A.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2005-10-03
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-6
- ISSN
- 1471-2342 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1569766984
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2342-5-6
- The paper
- Goodacre, S., Sampson, F., Thomas, S., van Beek, E., & Sutton, A. (2005). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis. BMC Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-5-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.