Suppr超能文献

采用替代方法与参考方法对腹腔内脂肪组织进行定量检测的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Intra-Abdominal Adipose Tissue Quantification by Alternative Versus Reference Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Health, Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Metabolism, Obesity and Nutrition Laboratory, PERFORM Centre, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

Obesity (Silver Spring). 2019 Jul;27(7):1115-1122. doi: 10.1002/oby.22494. Epub 2019 May 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the agreement between intra-abdominal adipose tissue (IAAT) quantified by alternative methods and the reference standards, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies that quantified IAAT thickness, area, or volume by a comparator method and CT or MRI. Using an inverse variance weighted approach (random-effects model), the mean differences and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were pooled between methods.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 24 studies using four comparator methods. The pooled mean differences were -0.3 cm (95% LoA: -3.4 to 3.2 cm; P = 0.400) for ultrasound and -11.6 cm (95% LoA: -43.1 to 19.9 cm ; P = 0.004) for bioelectrical impedance analysis. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) quantified both IAAT area and volume with mean differences of 8.1 cm (95% LoA: -98.9 to 115.1 cm ; P = 0.061) and 10 cm (95% LoA: -280 to 300 cm ; P = 0.808), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound and DXA measure IAAT with minimal bias from CT or MRI, while bioelectrical impedance analysis systematically underestimates IAAT. However, with the exception of DXA for IAAT volume, the wide LoA caution against clinical or research use of the comparator methods and emphasize the need to optimize alternatives to the reference standards.

摘要

目的

本荟萃分析旨在评估通过替代方法(计算机断层扫描[CT]和磁共振成像[MRI])定量的腹腔内脂肪组织(IAAT)与参考标准之间的一致性。

方法

系统检索 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 电子数据库,以确定通过比较方法定量 IAAT 厚度、面积或体积并与 CT 或 MRI 进行比较的研究。使用逆方差加权法(随机效应模型),对方法之间的平均差值和 95%一致性界限(LoA)进行汇总。

结果

荟萃分析纳入了使用四种比较方法的 24 项研究。超声的汇总平均差值为-0.3 cm(95% LoA:-3.4 至 3.2 cm;P=0.400),生物电阻抗分析为-11.6 cm(95% LoA:-43.1 至 19.9 cm;P=0.004)。双能 X 射线吸收法(DXA)定量测量 IAAT 面积和体积的平均差值分别为 8.1 cm(95% LoA:-98.9 至 115.1 cm;P=0.061)和 10 cm(95% LoA:-280 至 300 cm;P=0.808)。

结论

超声和 DXA 与 CT 或 MRI 相比,测量 IAAT 的偏差最小,而生物电阻抗分析则系统地低估了 IAAT。然而,除了 DXA 测量 IAAT 体积外,较宽的 LoA 不建议在临床或研究中使用比较方法,并强调需要优化替代参考标准的方法。

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