Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021
Network Meta-Analysis: Noninvasive Imaging Modalities for Identifying Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Hai Yang, Chong Weelic, Eisenbrey John R, Forsberg Flemming
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the current reference standard for obtaining portal venous pressures, several noninvasive imaging-based modalities have been proposed as alternatives.
AIMS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive imaging approaches for identifying clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).
METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception until January 5, 2021. The following imaging modalities were compared to HVPG: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance elastography, ultrasound, transient elastography (TE), shear wave elastography (SWE), acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and subharmonic-aided pressure estimation (SHAPE). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) for summary receiver operating characteristic were calculated using both frequentist random effects and Bayesian network meta-analytic approaches.
RESULTS: We analyzed 45 studies of 5678 patients. A broad overlapping confidence interval (CI) of DOR was observed among different imaging modalities: ARFI (30.5; 95% CI 12.7-73.3), CEUS and SHAPE (21.1; 95% CI 6.4-69.8), TE of liver stiffness (21.1; 95% CI 13.3-33.5), CT and MRI (13.7; 95% CI 7.40-25.4), SWE of liver stiffness (10.5; 95% CI 5.2-21.1), and ultrasound (9.5; 95% CI 4.9-18.4). The AUC of all imaging methods exceeded 0.8, indicating very good performance. At a cutoff of 80% specificity, TE, CEUS, and SHAPE exceeded 80% sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Overall, noninvasive imaging modalities perform well for identifying CSPH. Clinicians should consider these noninvasive and cost-efficient tests when diagnosing CSPH.
AIMS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive imaging approaches for identifying clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).
METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception until January 5, 2021. The following imaging modalities were compared to HVPG: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance elastography, ultrasound, transient elastography (TE), shear wave elastography (SWE), acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and subharmonic-aided pressure estimation (SHAPE). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) for summary receiver operating characteristic were calculated using both frequentist random effects and Bayesian network meta-analytic approaches.
RESULTS: We analyzed 45 studies of 5678 patients. A broad overlapping confidence interval (CI) of DOR was observed among different imaging modalities: ARFI (30.5; 95% CI 12.7-73.3), CEUS and SHAPE (21.1; 95% CI 6.4-69.8), TE of liver stiffness (21.1; 95% CI 13.3-33.5), CT and MRI (13.7; 95% CI 7.40-25.4), SWE of liver stiffness (10.5; 95% CI 5.2-21.1), and ultrasound (9.5; 95% CI 4.9-18.4). The AUC of all imaging methods exceeded 0.8, indicating very good performance. At a cutoff of 80% specificity, TE, CEUS, and SHAPE exceeded 80% sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Overall, noninvasive imaging modalities perform well for identifying CSPH. Clinicians should consider these noninvasive and cost-efficient tests when diagnosing CSPH.