PloS one · 2016
Spleen Stiffness Is Superior to Liver Stiffness for Predicting Esophageal Varices in Chronic Liver Disease: 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.
Ma Xiaowen, Wang Le, Wu Hao, Feng Yuemin, Han Xibiao, Bu Haoran, Zhu Qiang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Liver stiffness (LS) and spleen stiffness (SS) are two most widely accessible non-invasive parameters for predicting esophageal varices (EV), but the reported accuracy of the two predictors have been inconsistent across studies. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of LS and SS measurement for detecting EV in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD), and compare their accuracy.
METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Ovid were searched for all studies assessing SS and LS simultaneously in EV diagnosis. A total of 16 studies including 1892 patients were included in this meta-analysis, and the pooled statistical parameters were calculated using the bivariate mixed effects models.
RESULTS: In detection of any EV, for LS measurement, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.87), and the specificity was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.60-0.72). While for SS measurement, the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve values of LS and SS were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) respectively, and the results had statistical significance (P<0.01). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of SS (25.73) was significantly higher than that of LS (9.54), with the relative DOR value was 2.48 (95%CI: 1.10-5.60), P<0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: Under current techniques, SS is significantly superior to LS for identifying the presence of EV in patients with CLD. SS measurement may help to select patients for endoscopic screening.
METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Ovid were searched for all studies assessing SS and LS simultaneously in EV diagnosis. A total of 16 studies including 1892 patients were included in this meta-analysis, and the pooled statistical parameters were calculated using the bivariate mixed effects models.
RESULTS: In detection of any EV, for LS measurement, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.87), and the specificity was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.60-0.72). While for SS measurement, the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve values of LS and SS were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) respectively, and the results had statistical significance (P<0.01). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of SS (25.73) was significantly higher than that of LS (9.54), with the relative DOR value was 2.48 (95%CI: 1.10-5.60), P<0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: Under current techniques, SS is significantly superior to LS for identifying the presence of EV in patients with CLD. SS measurement may help to select patients for endoscopic screening.