SynthesisPloS one2023
Diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for orbital cellulitis: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound Characterization of Spiradenoma: Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026Pooled it
- Neurological Manifestations of Zika Virus Infection: An Updated Review of the Existing Literature.Cureus · 2025Review
- Use of a handheld ultrasound device for detecting orbital inflammation.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriorbital and orbital cellulitis are inflammatory conditions of the eye that can be difficult to distinguish using clinical examination alone. Computer tomography (CT) scans are often used to differentiate these two infections and to evaluate for complications. Orbital ultrasound (US) could be used as a diagnostic tool to supplement or replace CT scans as the main diagnostic modality. No prior systematic review has evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of ultrasound compared to cross-sectional imaging.
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of studies evaluating the DTA of orbital ultrasound compared with cross-sectional imaging, to diagnose orbital cellulitis.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 10, 2022. All study types were included that enrolled patients of any age with suspected or diagnosed orbital cellulitis who underwent ultrasound and a diagnostic reference standard (i.e., CT or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Two authors screened titles/abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias.
resultsOf the 3548 studies identified, 20 were included: 3 cohort studies and 17 case reports/series. None of the cohort studies directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound with CT or MRI, and all had high risk of bias. Among the 46 participants, diagnostic findings were interpretable in 18 (39%) cases which reported 100% accuracy. We were unable to calculate sensitivity and specificity due to limited data. In the descriptive analysis of the case reports, ultrasound was able to diagnose orbital cellulitis in most (n = 21/23) cases.
conclusionFew studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of orbital ultrasound for orbital cellulitis. The limited evidence based on low quality studies suggests that ultrasound may provide helpful diagnostic information to differentiate orbital inflammation. Future research should focus studies to determine the accuracy of orbital US and potentially reduce unnecessary exposure to radiation.
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.