Suppr超能文献

超声引导下唾液腺病变的核心针活检:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Pathology and ARUP Laboratories, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U. S. A.

出版信息

Laryngoscope. 2014 Mar;124(3):695-700. doi: 10.1002/lary.24339. Epub 2013 Sep 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To obtain summary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of core needle biopsy for assessment of salivary gland lesions and to investigate sources of variation in accuracy between study locations.

STUDY DESIGN

Data sources were PubMed, Embase, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, BIOSIS, LILACS, PakMediNet, Trip Database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Scopus was used to perform forward (citation) and backward (reference) searches of all potentially relevant studies.

METHODS

Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were independently performed by two different assessors. Meta-analysis was performed using bivariate mixed-effects binary regression as implemented in Stata 12. Quality assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2.

RESULTS

The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity of core needle biopsy for diagnosis of malignancy were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 87-99) and 100% (95% CI = 84-100), respectively. There was no significant heterogeneity in accuracy between studies. The quality of included studies was high, with low risk of verification bias. The risk of hematoma was 1.6% per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Core needle biopsy has high sensitivity and specificity, and has low risk of complications. There is no significant variation in accuracy between study locations.

摘要

目的/假设:获取核心针活检评估唾液腺病变的敏感性和特异性的汇总估计值,并研究研究地点之间准确性差异的来源。

研究设计

数据来源为 PubMed、Embase、CAB 摘要、CINAHL、BIOSIS、LILACS、PakMediNet、Trip 数据库和国家指南清除中心。Scopus 用于对所有潜在相关研究进行正向(引用)和反向(参考文献)搜索。

方法

由两名不同的评估人员独立进行筛选、数据提取和质量评估。使用 Stata 12 中实现的双变量混合效应二项回归进行荟萃分析。使用 QUADAS-2 进行质量评估。

结果

核心针活检诊断恶性肿瘤的敏感性和特异性的汇总估计值分别为 96%(95%置信区间[CI] = 87-99)和 100%(95% CI = 84-100)。研究之间的准确性没有显著差异。纳入研究的质量很高,验证偏倚的风险低。每个程序的血肿风险为 1.6%。

结论

核心针活检具有较高的敏感性和特异性,并发症风险低。研究地点之间的准确性没有显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验