Diagnostic performance of ultrasound in the assessment of gastric contents: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Insights into Imaging

Table 1 Characteristics of included articles and findings

Author	Year	country	Sample size	Mean age (years)	Sex (M/F)		Study object	Reference test	Positivity threshold	Ultrasound operator	Position	Area	Plane	Assessment methodology
Kruisselbrink et al [4]	2019	Canada	40	37	19/21	RCT	Adult	RG	Solid or liquid > 1.5 mL/kg	Clinician	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Quantitatively Qualitatively
Bisinotto et al [23]	2017	France	67	NA	23/44	Cohort study	Adult	RG	Solid or liquid > 1.5 mL/kg	Sonologist	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Qualitatively Quantitatively
Arzola et al [24]	2014	England	96	32	0/96	Cohort study	Pregnant	RG	NA	Clinician	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Qualitatively
Tankul et al [25]	2022	Thailand	47	42	15/32	Cohort study	Adult	RG	NA	Clinician	RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Qualitatively Quantitatively
Segura-Grau et al [26]	2021	Spain	36	43.78	20/16	Cohort study	Adult	UGI	NA	Sonologist Clinician	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Qualitatively Quantitatively
Gagey et al [27]	2018	France	130	NA	NA	Cohort study	Children	Aspiration	Solid or liquid > 0.8 mL/kg	Sonologist	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Grade
Johnson et al [28]	2021	America	42	27	NA	RCT	Adult	RG	NA	Sonologist Clinician	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Qualitatively
Mackenzie et al [29]	2019	America	45	32	30/15	RCT	Adult	RG	NA	Sonologist	SP RLDP	Antrum	NR	Qualitatively
Bouvet et al [30]	2022	France	20	27	9/11	RCT	Adult	RG	Solid or liquid > 1.5 mL/kg	Clinician	SP RLDP	Antrum	Sagittal plane	Grade quantitatively

NA not available, RCT randomized clinical trial, RG randomized grouping, UGI upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, SP supine position, RLDP right lateral position