Suppr超能文献

皮肤镜与反射式共聚焦显微镜在恶性皮肤肿瘤诊断中的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Comparison of dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of malignant skin tumours: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Xiong Yi-Quan, Ma Shu-Juan, Mo Yun, Huo Shu-Ting, Wen Yu-Qi, Chen Qing

机构信息

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou North Road, Guangzhou, 510515, China.

School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, China.

出版信息

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep;143(9):1627-1635. doi: 10.1007/s00432-017-2391-9. Epub 2017 Mar 13.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) are non-invasive methods for diagnosis of malignant skin tumours. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of dermoscopy and RCM for the diagnosis of malignant skin tumours.

METHODS

Systematic electronic literature searches were conducted to include PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library database, and Web of Science, up to 26 April 2016. Pooled additional detection rate (ADR), diagnostic accuracy, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using STATA and Meta-Disc analysis.

RESULTS

Eight published studies were included in the analysis, involving 1141 skin lesions, which reported a per-lesion analysis of dermoscopy and RCM. Within the same patient group and at the per-lesion level, RCM significantly increased the detection rate of malignant skin tumours by 7.7% (95% CI 0.01-0.14). The pooled sensitivity of dermoscopy was similar to RCM [88.1% (95% CI 0.85-0.91) vs. 93.5% (95% CI 0.91-0.96)]. The specificity of dermoscopy was significantly lower than that of RCM [52.9% (95% CI 0.49-0.57) vs. 80.3% (95% CI 0.77-0.83)]. The pooled ADR of RCM for melanoma detection was 4.3% (95% CI 0.002-0.08). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of dermoscopy for melanoma detection were 88.4% (95% CI 0.84-0.92) and 49.1% (95% CI 0.45-0.53), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of RCM were 93.5% (95% CI 0.90-0.96) and 78.8% (95% CI 0.75-0.82), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with dermoscopy, RCM has a significantly greater diagnostic specificity for malignant skin tumours and so could improve their detection rate.

摘要

目的

皮肤镜检查和反射式共聚焦显微镜检查(RCM)是诊断恶性皮肤肿瘤的非侵入性方法。本研究旨在比较皮肤镜检查和RCM对恶性皮肤肿瘤的诊断准确性。

方法

进行系统的电子文献检索,纳入截至2016年4月26日的PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆数据库和Web of Science。使用STATA和Meta-Disc分析计算合并的额外检出率(ADR)、诊断准确性和95%置信区间(CI)。

结果

分析纳入8项已发表研究,涉及1141个皮肤病变,这些研究报告了对皮肤镜检查和RCM的逐个病变分析。在同一患者组中,在逐个病变水平上,RCM使恶性皮肤肿瘤的检出率显著提高了7.7%(95%CI 0.01-0.14)。皮肤镜检查的合并敏感性与RCM相似[88.1%(95%CI 0.85-0.91)对93.5%(95%CI 0.91-0.96)]。皮肤镜检查的特异性显著低于RCM[52.9%(95%CI 0.49-0.57)对80.3%(95%CI 0.77-0.83)]。RCM检测黑色素瘤的合并ADR为4.3%(95%CI 0.002-0.08)。皮肤镜检查检测黑色素瘤的合并敏感性和特异性分别为88.4%(95%CI 0.84-0.92)和49.1%(95%CI 0.45-0.53)。RCM的合并敏感性和特异性分别为93.5%(95%CI 0.90-0.96)和78.8%(95%CI 0.75-0.82)。

结论

与皮肤镜检查相比,RCM对恶性皮肤肿瘤具有显著更高的诊断特异性,因此可以提高其检出率。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验