SynthesisBalkan medical journal2019
Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma for Assessment of Injury in Military Settings: A Meta-analysis
Synthesis in Balkan medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The application of focused assessment with sonography for trauma in resource-limited settings: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Using Deep Learning to Detect the Presence and Location of Hemoperitoneum on the Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) Examination in Adults.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-invasive, rapid, and precise assessment of injury in the military settings is extremely important, yet difficult. Focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) is being increasingly employed for assessing the location and severity of injury and guiding further treatment strategy. However, the evidence regarding the utility of FAST in the military settings is scattered. Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of FAST in the assessment of injury in the military settings. Study Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: We identified all relevant papers via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. We evaluated the quality of included studies by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We pooled the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio as the effect sizes, followed by evaluating the heterogeneity among the studies by p value and I Results: Among the 39 papers, a total of six papers were included. The sample size ranged from 15 to 396. The AUC of FAST for assessing the injury was 0.85. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.66, 0.98, 33.1, 0.34, and 97, respectively. The heterogeneity among the studies was statistically significant (p=0.006, I Conclusion: FAST is potentially valuable for assessing injury in the military settings. Due to its high specificity, FAST may be appropriate to rule in significant injury. However, because of its poor sensitivity, the ability of FAST to rule out injury cannot be relied upon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.