European journal of radiology · 2020
Hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography vs. magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography for diagnosing fallopian tubal patency: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический 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.
Chen Ling-Shan, Zhu Zheng-Qiu, Li Jing, Wang Zhi-Tao, Qiang Ye, Hu Xu-Yu, Zhang Mei-Mei, Wang Zhong-Qiu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography (HyCoSy) and magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) in the diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for records up to November 30, 2019. Studies involved in the diagnostic detection of HyCoSy or MR-HSG for fallopian tubal patency using conventional HSG or laparoscopy as the reference test were included. Data was analyzed by meta-analysis. We compared sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) plots of both HyCoSy and MR-HSG. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS: The analysis included 24 articles involving 1340 patients. HyCoSy was studied in 17 studies, and MR-HSG was studied in seven studies. For HyCoSy in diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency, pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 87 %-91 %), and specificity was 93 % (95 % CI, 91 %-94 %). For MR-HSG in diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency, pooled sensitivity was 100 % (95 % CI, 98 %-100 %), and specificity was 82 % (95 % CI, 74 %-89 %). The sROC showed similar diagnostic accuracy for MR-HSG and HyCoSy. 3D/4D HyCoSy with ultrasound microbubbles had equal sensitivity (95 % vs. 100 %, P = 0.186) and significantly higher specificity (94 % vs. 82 %, P = 0.005) compared with MR-HSG.
CONCLUSIONS: HyCoSy and MR-HSG showed similar overall diagnostic performance for diagnosing fallopian tubal patency. 3D/4D HyCoSy with ultrasound microbubbles could significantly improve the diagnostic specificity of HyCoSy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for records up to November 30, 2019. Studies involved in the diagnostic detection of HyCoSy or MR-HSG for fallopian tubal patency using conventional HSG or laparoscopy as the reference test were included. Data was analyzed by meta-analysis. We compared sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) plots of both HyCoSy and MR-HSG. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS: The analysis included 24 articles involving 1340 patients. HyCoSy was studied in 17 studies, and MR-HSG was studied in seven studies. For HyCoSy in diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency, pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 87 %-91 %), and specificity was 93 % (95 % CI, 91 %-94 %). For MR-HSG in diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency, pooled sensitivity was 100 % (95 % CI, 98 %-100 %), and specificity was 82 % (95 % CI, 74 %-89 %). The sROC showed similar diagnostic accuracy for MR-HSG and HyCoSy. 3D/4D HyCoSy with ultrasound microbubbles had equal sensitivity (95 % vs. 100 %, P = 0.186) and significantly higher specificity (94 % vs. 82 %, P = 0.005) compared with MR-HSG.
CONCLUSIONS: HyCoSy and MR-HSG showed similar overall diagnostic performance for diagnosing fallopian tubal patency. 3D/4D HyCoSy with ultrasound microbubbles could significantly improve the diagnostic specificity of HyCoSy.