No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Diagnosing posterior chamber ocular abnormalities typically requires specialist assessment. Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) performed by nonspecialists, if accurate, could negate the need for urgent ophthalmologist evaluation. OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis sought to define the diagnostic test characteristics of emergency practitioner-performed ocular POCUS to diagnose multiple posterior chamber abnormalities in adults. DATA SOURCES PubMed (OVID), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from inception through June 2019 without restrictions. Conference abstracts and trial registries were also searched. Bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews were manually searched, and experts in the field were queried. STUDY SELECTION Included studies compared ocular POCUS performed by emergency practitioners with a reference standard of ophthalmologist evaluation. Pediatric studies were excluded. All 116 studies identified during abstract screening as potentially relevant underwent fulltext review by multiple authors, and 9 studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, multiple authors extracted data from included studies. Results were meta-analyzed for each diagnosis using a bivariate random-effects model. Data analysis was performed in July 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The outcomes of interest were diagnostic test characteristics of ocular POCUS for the following diagnoses: retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, vitreous detachment, intraocular foreign body, globe rupture, and lens dislocation. RESULTS Nine studies (1189 eyes) were included. All studies evaluated retinal detachment, but up to 5 studies assessed each of the other diagnoses of interest. For retinal detachment, sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.97) and specificity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.65-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98), respectively, for vitreous hemorrhage and were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.81) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.53-0.98), respectively, for vitreous detachment. Sensitivity and specificity were high for lens dislocation (0.97 [95% CI, 0.83-0.99] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]), intraocular foreign body (1.00 [95% CI, 0.81-1.00] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]), and globe rupture (1.00 [95% CI, 0.63-1.00] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]). Results were generally unchanged in sensitivity analyses of studies with low risk of bias.

IMPORTANCE Acute vertigo can be disabling. Antihistamines and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed as "vestibular suppressants," but their efficacy is unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of antihistamines and benzodiazepines in the treatment of acute vertigo from any underlying cause.DATA SOURCES We searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to January 14, 2019, without language restrictions. Bibliographies of the included studies and relevant reviews were also screened. STUDY SELECTIONWe included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing antihistamine or benzodiazepine use with another comparator, placebo, or no intervention for patients with a duration of acute vertigo for 2 weeks or less. Studies of healthy volunteers, prophylactic treatment, or induced vertigo were excluded, as were studies that compared 2 medications from the same class. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Following Preferred Reporting Items for SystematicReviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 authors independently for each study. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe predefined primary outcome was change in 10-or 100-point vertigo or dizziness visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcomes included change in nausea VAS scores at 2 hours, use of rescue medication at 2 hours, and improvement or resolution of vertigo at 1 week or 1 month. RESULTSOf the 27 trials identified in the systematic review, 17 contributed to the quantitative meta-analysis and involved a total of 1586 participants. Seven trials with a total of 802 participants evaluated the primary outcome of interest: single-dose antihistamines resulted in significantly more improvement on 100-point VAS scores compared with benzodiazepines (difference, 16.1 [95% CI, 7.2 to 25.0]) but not compared with other active comparators (difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -6.1 to 11.5]). At 1 week and 1 month, neither daily benzodiazepines nor antihistamines were reported to be superior to placebo. RCTs comparing the immediate effects of medications (at 2 hours) after a single dose generally had a low risk of bias, but those evaluating 1-week and 1-month outcomes had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEModerately strong evidence suggests that single-dose antihistamines provide greater vertigo relief at 2 hours than single-dose benzodiazepines. Furthermore, the available evidence did not support an association of benzodiazepine use with improvement in any outcomes for acute vertigo. Other evidence suggested that daily antihistamine use may not benefit patients with acute vertigo. Larger randomized trials comparing both antihistamines and benzodiazepines with placebo could better clarify the relative efficacy of these medications.