Expert review of medical devices · 2022
Diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness on two-dimensional shear wave elastography for detecting clinically significant portal hypertension: a meta-analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Dong Bingtian, Chen Yuping, Chen Yongjian, Wang Huaming, Lyu Guorong
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) has recently been proposed to detect clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), we aimed to perform a meta-analysis based on the published data to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 2D-SWE for detecting CSPH.
METHOD: Literature databases were searched up until 1 August 2021. The summary area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were used to examine the accuracy of 2D-SWE for evaluating CSPH. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression.
RESULTS: Finally 9 studies with 956 patients were included in this study for evaluation and meta-analysis. 2D-SWE showed good diagnostic performance for detecting CSPH with a summary sensitivity of 83% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76%-88%) and summary specificity of 78% (95% CI: 65%-87%); the summary AUROC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90). Summary positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and DOR of 2D-SWE for detecting CSPH were 3.7 (95% CI: 2.4-5.9), 0.22 (95% CI: 0.16-0.30), and 17 (95% CI: 10-29), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: 2D-SWE showed good performance in diagnosing CSPH and can be considered as an important and noninvasive adjunctive approach in the management of patients with CSPH.
METHOD: Literature databases were searched up until 1 August 2021. The summary area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were used to examine the accuracy of 2D-SWE for evaluating CSPH. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression.
RESULTS: Finally 9 studies with 956 patients were included in this study for evaluation and meta-analysis. 2D-SWE showed good diagnostic performance for detecting CSPH with a summary sensitivity of 83% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76%-88%) and summary specificity of 78% (95% CI: 65%-87%); the summary AUROC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90). Summary positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and DOR of 2D-SWE for detecting CSPH were 3.7 (95% CI: 2.4-5.9), 0.22 (95% CI: 0.16-0.30), and 17 (95% CI: 10-29), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: 2D-SWE showed good performance in diagnosing CSPH and can be considered as an important and noninvasive adjunctive approach in the management of patients with CSPH.