Suppr超能文献

超声造影引导下经皮穿刺活检对胸部及肺部病变的诊断价值:一项系统评价与Meta分析

Efficacy of CEUS-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Sun Zhe, Yu Xuejiao, Ma Jiaojiao, Zhou Tongtong, Zhang Bo

机构信息

China-Japan Friendship Hospital (Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China.

Department of Ultrasound, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China.

出版信息

BMC Med Imaging. 2025 May 12;25(1):158. doi: 10.1186/s12880-025-01700-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study compares the success rate, diagnostic accuracy, and safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided biopsy versus conventional ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted. The primary outcomes included success rate and diagnostic accuracy, and the secondary outcome was the odds ratio of adverse effects. A random-effects meta-analysis pooled the data, with heterogeneity assessed by I² and publication bias evaluated using Egger's test and funnel plot analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm result robustness. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 3,459 patients were included. CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrated higher success rate (99.18%, 95% CI: 98.00-99.90%) and diagnostic accuracy (95.96%, 95% CI: 94.84-96.96%) than US-guided biopsy (success rate: 97.26%, 95% CI: 95.45-98.68%; diagnostic accuracy: 85.87%, 95% CI: 82.05-89.31%). Complications were more frequent in the US-guided group, with an odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.15-2.37). Heterogeneity was low, and publication bias was minimal, except for diagnostic accuracy in the US group. Sensitivity analysis confirmed result robustness.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional ultrasound, CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrates a comparable success rate, superior diagnostic accuracy, and a lower incidence of complications, underscoring its clinical value as a preferred approach for thoracic and pulmonary lesion assessment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024608627.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.

摘要

背景

本研究比较了超声造影(CEUS)引导下活检与传统超声(US)引导下活检对胸部和肺部病变的成功率、诊断准确性和安全性。

方法

对PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行系统检索。主要结局包括成功率和诊断准确性,次要结局是不良反应的比值比。采用随机效应荟萃分析汇总数据,用I²评估异质性,用Egger检验和漏斗图分析评估发表偏倚。进行敏感性分析以确认结果的稳健性。进行亚组分析和荟萃回归以探索异质性来源。

结果

纳入16项研究,共3459例患者。CEUS引导下活检的成功率(99.18%,95%CI:98.00 - 99.90%)和诊断准确性(95.96%,95%CI:94.84 - 96.96%)高于US引导下活检(成功率:97.26%,95%CI:95.45 - 98.68%;诊断准确性:85.87%,95%CI:82.05 - 89.31%)。US引导组并发症更常见,比值比为1.65(95%CI:1.15 - 2.37)。异质性较低,除US组诊断准确性外,发表偏倚最小。敏感性分析确认了结果的稳健性。

结论

与传统超声相比,CEUS引导下活检成功率相当,诊断准确性更高,并发症发生率更低,突出了其作为胸部和肺部病变评估首选方法的临床价值。

系统评价注册

本研究在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42024608627。

临床试验编号

不适用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d9dd/12070642/d3aa2da6f901/12880_2025_1700_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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