Suppr超能文献

超声内镜与磁共振胰胆管成像在胆总管结石诊断中的准确性比较:对头对头研究中诊断试验准确性的荟萃分析。

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS compared with MRCP in detecting choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in head-to-head studies.

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Dec;86(6):986-993. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.009. Epub 2017 Jun 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a wide range of reported sensitivity and specificity for EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, with lack of a proper meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy by using head-to-head comparison. Here, we aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP in detecting choledocholithiasis by using appropriate methodology recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search up to January 2017 was done by 2 reviewers for prospective cohort studies comparing EUS and MRCP to a reference standard for detecting choledocholithiasis. The acceptable reference standards were considered ERCP, intraoperative cholangiography, or clinical follow-up >3 months for negative cases. Quality of the included studies was measured by using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate hierarchical model was used to perform the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Summary receiver operating characteristics were developed and the area under the curve was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 5 of 32 studies were included. No study presented a high risk of bias. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (range, 0.91-0.99) and 0.90 (range, 0.83-0.94) for EUS and 0.87 (range, 0.80-0.93) and 0.92 (range, 0.87-0.96) for MRCP. The overall diagnostic odds ratio of EUS was significantly higher than the one with MRCP (162.5 vs 79.0, respectively; P = .008). Further analysis showed that this was mainly due to the significantly higher sensitivity of EUS as compared with that of MRCP (P = .006). The specificity was not significantly different between 2 modalities (P = .42).

CONCLUSION

Both EUS and MRCP provide good diagnostic accuracy, with EUS providing statically better diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, with comparable specificity. EUS should be incorporated in the diagnostic algorithm in patients suspected of choledocholithiasis whenever appropriate.

摘要

背景与目的

EUS 和 MRCP 在胆总管结石诊断中的敏感度和特异度报道差异较大,且缺乏对头对头比较的诊断测试准确性的适当荟萃分析。在此,我们旨在使用 Cochrane 协作推荐的适当方法比较 EUS 和 MRCP 检测胆总管结石的诊断准确性。

方法

两名评审员对截至 2017 年 1 月的前瞻性队列研究进行了全面的电子文献检索,这些研究比较了 EUS 和 MRCP 与检测胆总管结石的参考标准。可接受的参考标准被认为是 ERCP、术中胆管造影术或阴性病例的 3 个月以上临床随访。使用 QUADAS-2 工具测量纳入研究的质量。使用双变量层次模型对诊断测试准确性进行荟萃分析。开发汇总受试者工作特征曲线,并计算曲线下面积。

结果

共纳入 5 项研究。没有研究存在高偏倚风险。EUS 的汇总敏感度和特异度分别为 0.97(范围,0.91-0.99)和 0.90(范围,0.83-0.94),MRCP 的分别为 0.87(范围,0.80-0.93)和 0.92(范围,0.87-0.96)。EUS 的总体诊断优势比明显高于 MRCP(分别为 162.5 和 79.0;P =.008)。进一步分析表明,这主要是由于 EUS 的敏感度明显高于 MRCP(P =.006)。两种方法的特异性无显著差异(P =.42)。

结论

EUS 和 MRCP 均提供良好的诊断准确性,EUS 提供了统计学上更好的诊断准确性和敏感度,特异性相当。在适当情况下,EUS 应纳入怀疑胆总管结石的患者的诊断算法中。

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