Medicine · 2022
Comparison between computed tomography-guided core and fine needle lung biopsy: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Li Yong, Yang Fang, Huang Ya-Yong, Cao Wei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and diagnostic performance between computed tomography (CT)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) and fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) in lung nodules/masses patients.
METHODS: All relevant studies in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that were published as of June 2020 were identified. RevMan version 5.3 was used for all data analyses.
RESULTS: In total, 9 relevant studies were included in the present meta-analysis. These studies were all retrospective and analyzed outcomes associated with 2175 procedures, including both CT-guided CNB (n = 819) and FNAB (n = 1356) procedures. CNB was associated with significantly higher sample adequacy rates than was FNAB (95.7% vs 85.8%, OR: 0.26; P < .00001), while diagnostic accuracy rates did not differ between these groups (90.1% vs 87.6%, OR: 0.8; P = .46). In addition, no differences in rates of pneumothorax (28.6% vs 23.0%, OR: 1.15; P = .71), hemorrhage (17.3% vs 20.1%, OR: 0.91; P = .62), and chest tube insertion (5.9% vs 4.9%, OR: 1.01; P = .97) were detected between these groups. Significant heterogeneity among included studies was detected for the diagnostic accuracy (I2 = 57%) and pneumothorax (I2 = 77%) endpoints. There were no significant differences between CNB and FNAB with respect to diagnostic accuracy rates for lung nodules (P = .90). In addition, we detected no evidence of significant publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided CNB could achieve better sample adequacy than FNAB did during the lung biopsy procedure. However, the CNB did not show any superiorities in items of diagnostic accuracy and safety.
METHODS: All relevant studies in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that were published as of June 2020 were identified. RevMan version 5.3 was used for all data analyses.
RESULTS: In total, 9 relevant studies were included in the present meta-analysis. These studies were all retrospective and analyzed outcomes associated with 2175 procedures, including both CT-guided CNB (n = 819) and FNAB (n = 1356) procedures. CNB was associated with significantly higher sample adequacy rates than was FNAB (95.7% vs 85.8%, OR: 0.26; P < .00001), while diagnostic accuracy rates did not differ between these groups (90.1% vs 87.6%, OR: 0.8; P = .46). In addition, no differences in rates of pneumothorax (28.6% vs 23.0%, OR: 1.15; P = .71), hemorrhage (17.3% vs 20.1%, OR: 0.91; P = .62), and chest tube insertion (5.9% vs 4.9%, OR: 1.01; P = .97) were detected between these groups. Significant heterogeneity among included studies was detected for the diagnostic accuracy (I2 = 57%) and pneumothorax (I2 = 77%) endpoints. There were no significant differences between CNB and FNAB with respect to diagnostic accuracy rates for lung nodules (P = .90). In addition, we detected no evidence of significant publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided CNB could achieve better sample adequacy than FNAB did during the lung biopsy procedure. However, the CNB did not show any superiorities in items of diagnostic accuracy and safety.