European radiology · 2022
Prediction of high-risk esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease with point and 2D shear wave elastography: a 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.
Liu Yue, Tan Hao-Yan, Zhang Xiao-Guang, Zhen Yan-Hua, Gao Fan, Lu Xue-Feng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic performance of liver stiffness (LS) and spleen stiffness (SS) measured by point shear wave elastography (pSWE) and 2D shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) in the detection of high-risk esophageal varices (HREV) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: Through systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, we included 17 articles reporting the diagnostic performance of LS or SS measured by pSWE or 2D-SWE for HREV. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), area under summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUSROC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
RESULTS: For LS, there was no significant difference between the pooled sensitivity, 0.89 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.81-0.94) vs. 0.8 (95% CI, 0.72-0.86) (p = 0.13), and specificity, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87) vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.79) (p = 0.07) of pSWE and 2D-SWE. The AUSROC and DOR of pSWE were higher than those of 2D-SWE: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94) vs. 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), p = 0.03, 33 (95% CI, 25-61) vs. 11 (95% CI, 5-22), (p < 0.01). For SS, there was no significant difference between the pooled sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96) vs. 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94) (p = 0.43); specificity, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84) vs. 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79) (p = 0.06); and DOR, 35 (95% CI, 13-100) vs. 20 (95% CI, 8-50) (p = 0.16) of pSWE and 2D-SWE.
CONCLUSION: LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE have good accuracy in predicting HREV.
KEY POINTS: • There is modest difference between the diagnostic performance of LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE. • LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE both have high sensitivity, specificity, and AUSROC for the evaluation of HREV in patients with CLD. • pSWE and 2D-SWE are promising tools for noninvasive monitoring risk of esophageal varices bleeding of CLD patients.
METHODS: Through systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, we included 17 articles reporting the diagnostic performance of LS or SS measured by pSWE or 2D-SWE for HREV. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), area under summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUSROC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
RESULTS: For LS, there was no significant difference between the pooled sensitivity, 0.89 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.81-0.94) vs. 0.8 (95% CI, 0.72-0.86) (p = 0.13), and specificity, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87) vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.79) (p = 0.07) of pSWE and 2D-SWE. The AUSROC and DOR of pSWE were higher than those of 2D-SWE: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94) vs. 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), p = 0.03, 33 (95% CI, 25-61) vs. 11 (95% CI, 5-22), (p < 0.01). For SS, there was no significant difference between the pooled sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96) vs. 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94) (p = 0.43); specificity, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84) vs. 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79) (p = 0.06); and DOR, 35 (95% CI, 13-100) vs. 20 (95% CI, 8-50) (p = 0.16) of pSWE and 2D-SWE.
CONCLUSION: LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE have good accuracy in predicting HREV.
KEY POINTS: • There is modest difference between the diagnostic performance of LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE. • LS and SS measured by pSWE and 2D-SWE both have high sensitivity, specificity, and AUSROC for the evaluation of HREV in patients with CLD. • pSWE and 2D-SWE are promising tools for noninvasive monitoring risk of esophageal varices bleeding of CLD patients.