Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · 2016
Computed tomography in evaluating gastroesophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Tseng Yu-Jen, Zeng Xiao-Qing, Chen Jie, Li Na, Xu Peng-Ju, Chen Shi-Yao
Аннотация
AIMS: Gastroesophageal varices (GOV) is a common complication in patients with portal hypertension. We conducted a meta-analysis in attempt to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) as a noninvasive imaging tool for identifying GOV in reference to esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).
METHODS: A systemic literature search of multiple databases were conducted to identify articles that investigated the diagnostic performance of CT for GOV, while employing EGD as reference standard. A 2×2 table was conducted according to the available published data for both esophageal varices (EV) and gastric varices (GV) as individual subgroups. The following indices were calculated: pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under receiver operating characteristics. All statistical analyses were conducted via STATA13.0 and RevMan5.3.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, 10 articles evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CT for EV (807 subjects) and 7 articles for GV (583 subjects). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying EV were 0.896 (95% CI, 0.841-0.934) and 0.723 (95% CI, 0.644-0.791), respectively, with an AUROC of 0.86. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying GV were 0.955 (95% CI, 0.903-0.980) and 0.658 (95% CI, 0.433-0.829), respectively, with an AUROC of 0.95. A subgroup analysis suggested varying CT technology could serve as a potential source of heterogeneity between included studies. A Deek's funnel plot indicated a low probability for publication bias.
CONCLUSION: Computed tomography could potentially replace EGD as a primary screening tool for diagnosing GOV, however results should be interpreted with caution given its suboptimal specificity.
METHODS: A systemic literature search of multiple databases were conducted to identify articles that investigated the diagnostic performance of CT for GOV, while employing EGD as reference standard. A 2×2 table was conducted according to the available published data for both esophageal varices (EV) and gastric varices (GV) as individual subgroups. The following indices were calculated: pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under receiver operating characteristics. All statistical analyses were conducted via STATA13.0 and RevMan5.3.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, 10 articles evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CT for EV (807 subjects) and 7 articles for GV (583 subjects). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying EV were 0.896 (95% CI, 0.841-0.934) and 0.723 (95% CI, 0.644-0.791), respectively, with an AUROC of 0.86. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying GV were 0.955 (95% CI, 0.903-0.980) and 0.658 (95% CI, 0.433-0.829), respectively, with an AUROC of 0.95. A subgroup analysis suggested varying CT technology could serve as a potential source of heterogeneity between included studies. A Deek's funnel plot indicated a low probability for publication bias.
CONCLUSION: Computed tomography could potentially replace EGD as a primary screening tool for diagnosing GOV, however results should be interpreted with caution given its suboptimal specificity.