2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for differential diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims To assess the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CE-EUS) for autoimmune pancreatitis and other solid pancreatic masses.

          Patients and methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed from inception to October 2022. We calculated individual and pooled sensitivities and specificities to determine the diagnostic ability of CE-EUS. In addition, we calculated I 2 to test for heterogeneity and explored the source of heterogeneity by meta-regression analysis.

          Results A total of 472 patients from seven eligible studies were included. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the Bivariate analysis were 0.84 (95% CI 0.71–0.92) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.84–0.99), respectively. The diagnostic advantage ratio was 107.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.22–524.13), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88–0.93). The overall heterogeneity of the studies is negligible (I 2 =0, 95% CI 0–100). However, notable heterogeneity was observed in the combined specificity ( P <0.01, I 2 =74.82) and diagnostic odds ratio ( P =0.05, I 2 =51.54). The heterogeneity in these aspects could be elucidated through sensitivity analysis.

          Conclusions Our analysis showed that CE-EUS is useful in identifying autoimmune pancreatitis. However, further large sample size, multicenter, prospective studies are needed to demonstrate its utility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

              In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-00025476
                Endosc Int Open
                Endoscopy International Open
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                10 October 2024
                October 2024
                1 October 2024
                : 12
                : 10
                : E1134-E1142
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ringgold 191599, Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China;
                [2 ]Ringgold 175578, ENdocrinology and Physiology, Institute of Nature Conservation PAS, Krakow, Poland;
                Author notes
                Correspondence Dr. Changqing Guo Ringgold 191599, Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University; ZhengzhouChina 1807872771@ 123456qq.com
                Article
                EIO-2023-09-3135-OA
                10.1055/a-2409-5519
                11466521
                39398443
                c5a9297f-ca95-42b8-9dde-8da727399cbb
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 September 2023
                : 25 April 2024
                Categories
                Original article

                pancreatobiliary (ercp/ptcd),pancreatoscopy,endoscopic ultrasonography

                Comments

                Comment on this article