Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Electronic "Sniffer" Systems to Identify the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in substantial mortality but remains underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Automated ARDS "sniffer" systems, tools that can automatically analyze electronic medical record data, have been developed to improve recognition of ARDS in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review examining the evidence underlying automated sniffer systems for ARDS detection.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Scopus databases through October 2018 to identify studies of tools using routinely available clinical data to detect patients with ARDS.

DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, tool description, and diagnostic performance were extracted by two reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate each study for risk of bias in 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and study flow and timing.

SYNTHESIS: Among 480 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria, evaluating six unique ARDS sniffer tools. Eight studies were derivation and/or temporal validation designs, with one also evaluating the effect of implementing a tool in clinical practice. A single study performed an external validation of previously published ARDS sniffer tools. Studies reported a wide range of sensitivities (43% to 98%) and positive predictive values (26% to 90%) for detection of ARDS. Most studies had potential for high risks of bias identified in their study design, including patient selection (5 of 9), reference standard (4 of 9), and flow and timing (3 of 9). In the single external validation without any perceived risks of biases, performance of ARDS sniffer tools were worse.

CONCLUSIONS: Sniffer systems developed to detect ARDS had moderate to high predictive value in their derivation cohorts, although most studies had potential for high risks of bias in study design. Methodological issues may explain some of the variability in tool performance. There remains an ongoing need for robust evaluations of ARDS sniffer systems and their impact on clinical practice. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015026584.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app