Respiratory care · 2015
Utility and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound With Bronchoscope-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Mediastinal Lymph Node Sampling: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dhooria Sahajal, Aggarwal Ashutosh N, Gupta Dheeraj, Behera Digambar, Agarwal Ritesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of endoscopic ultrasound with bronchoscope-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-B-FNA) has been described in the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Herein, we conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the overall diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-B-FNA combined with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy.
METHODS: The PubMed and EmBase databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of EUS-B-FNA in diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The study quality was assessed using the QualSyst tool. The yield of EBUS-TBNA alone and the combined procedure (EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA) were analyzed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio for each study, and pooling the study results using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed for individual outcomes. The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was calculated using proportion meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 studies (1,080 subjects with mediastinal lymphadenopathy). The sensitivity of the combined procedure was significantly higher than EBUS-TBNA alone (91% vs 80%, P = .004), in staging of lung cancer (4 studies, 465 subjects). The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was 7.6% in the diagnosis of mediastinal adenopathy. No serious complication of EUS-B-FNA procedure was reported. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present without any evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Combining EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA is an effective and safe method, superior to EBUS-TBNA alone, in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Good quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this systematic review.
METHODS: The PubMed and EmBase databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of EUS-B-FNA in diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The study quality was assessed using the QualSyst tool. The yield of EBUS-TBNA alone and the combined procedure (EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA) were analyzed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio for each study, and pooling the study results using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed for individual outcomes. The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was calculated using proportion meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 studies (1,080 subjects with mediastinal lymphadenopathy). The sensitivity of the combined procedure was significantly higher than EBUS-TBNA alone (91% vs 80%, P = .004), in staging of lung cancer (4 studies, 465 subjects). The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was 7.6% in the diagnosis of mediastinal adenopathy. No serious complication of EUS-B-FNA procedure was reported. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present without any evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Combining EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA is an effective and safe method, superior to EBUS-TBNA alone, in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Good quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this systematic review.