磁共振胰胆管成像与超声内镜诊断胆道梗阻疾病的系统评价

目的 评价磁共振胰胆管成像(MRCP)与超声内镜(EUS)对胆道梗阻疾病的诊断准确率.方法 检索多家数据库,并手工检索相关会议论文集和中文杂志.2位研究者各自对符合纳入标准的资料进行提取和质量评价,交叉核对,如有分歧,通过讨论或由第3位研究人员协助解决.根据QUADAS质量评估系统评价研究的质量.计算合并统计值敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比及其95％置信区间,绘制概括性受试者特征性工作曲线(SROC)并计算二者的曲线下面积,通过t检验比较二者的敏感度、特异度差异有无统计学意义.结果 共纳入13篇文献,总计1200例患者.MRCP与EUS对胆总管结石所致梗阻诊断的合并敏感度分别为0.870与0.935,合并特异度为0.952与0.947,合并阳性似然比为14.055与16.653,合并阴性似然比为0.177与0.076,SROC曲线下面积为0.9693与0.9771;MRCP与EUS对胆道恶性梗阻诊断的合并敏感度分别为0.805与0.959,合并特异度为0.927与0.975,合并阳性似然比为13.448与23.398,合并阴性似然比为0.134与0.059,SROC曲线下面积为0.9686与0.9870.MRCP与EUS对胆总管结石所致梗阻及胆道恶性梗阻的诊断敏感度、特异度差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 MRCP与EUS对胆总管结石及胆道恶性梗阻所致的胆道梗阻疾病均有较高的诊断价值.     

超声内镜对胆总管小结石的诊断价值

为评估超声内镜检查术（endoscopic ultrasonography,EUS）对胆总管小结石的诊断价值,纳入2018年1月—2021年7月在东南大学附属中大医院住院并诊断为可疑胆总管结石的患者60例。所有患者于同一次住院期间行EUS及磁共振胰胆管成像（magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP）。以经内镜逆行胰胆管造影、开腹探查或腹腔镜胆总管探查结果为金标准,比较EUS及MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断结果,计算2种检查方法的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值。结果显示,60例患者中46例确诊胆总管结石,EUS诊断准确43例,MRCP诊断准确35例;14例患者证实胆总管结石阴性,EUS诊断准确12例,MRCP诊断准确13例。EUS诊断灵敏度明显高于MRCP［93.48%（43/46）比76.09%（35/46）,χ2=4.128,P=0.042］。结石直径≤1.0 cm者45例,其中EUS确诊42例,MRCP确诊34例（诊断准确率93.33%比75.56%,χ2=4.145,P=0.042）;直径≤0.8 cm者39例,其中EUS确诊36例,MRCP确诊28例（诊断准确率92.31%比71.79%,χ2=4.266,P=0.039）;直径≤0.5 cm者26例,其中EUS确诊24例,MRCP确诊16例（诊断准确率92.31%比61.54%,χ2=5.038,P=0.021）。在胆总管结石的诊断方面,EUS有明显的诊断优势,且诊断准确性不受结石大小的影响,因此对于临床高度怀疑胆总管结石但MRCP结果阴性的患者,需进一步行EUS。     

超声内镜与磁共振胰胆管成像对胆总管泥沙样结石的诊断价值

目的 本研究旨在探讨超声内镜(EUS)与磁共振胰胆管成像(MRCP)在胆总管泥沙样结石诊断中的价值。方法 回顾性分析2020年4月至2023年4月于保定市第一中心医院住院治疗的疑似胆总管泥沙样结石患者192例,经纳入与排除标准筛选,最终纳入182例患者作为研究对象。所有患者首先进行MRCP检查,若MRCP结果提示泥沙样结石则直接行内窥镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)检查,其余患者依次行EUS和ERCP。以ERCP造影联合乳头括约肌切开取石(EST)作为诊断胆总管泥沙样结石的金标准,将各项检查结果与取石结果进行比较。结果 EUS、MRCP和EUS联合MRCP检出胆总管泥沙样结石的阳性率分别为81.76%、65.38%和86.49%;在经ERCP下EST所证实的阳性结果中,EUS检出胆总管泥沙样结石的敏感度、特异度和准确度分别为93.08%、83.33%和91.89%;MRCP为72.56%、77.78%和73.08%;EUS联合MRCP为98.46%、88.89%和97.30%。结论 EUS和MRCP在胆总管泥沙样结石的诊断中都具有一定潜力,但EUS在准确性方面更具优势。EUS联合MRCP可...     

超声内镜对核磁共振胰胆管造影术阴性胆总管结石的诊断价值

[目的]探讨超声内镜(endoscopic ultrasonography,EUS)对核磁共振胰胆管造影术(magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP)显示阴性的胆总管结石的诊断价值。[方法]回顾性分析完善EUS、MRCP两项检查诊断为胆总管结石81例患者的临床资料。通过SPSS统计学方法、χ~2检验对比分析两项检查方法对胆总管结石的诊断差别,研究EUS对MRCP显示阴性的胆总管结石的影像特征及临床价值。以内镜逆行胰胆管造影术取出结石或采用Seldinger's技术经穿刺道取出结石、经T管胆道镜取出结石为金标准。[结果]81例均经临床治疗取出结石。EUS、MRCP对该81例胆总管结石的检出率分别为90.1%(73/81)、79.0%(64/81),差异有统计学意义(χ~2=9.225,P0.01)。经对EUS诊断为阳性、而MRCP诊断为阴性的12例患者基本信息分析表明,EUS对扩张胆总管的诊断高于MRCP,但二者对扩张胆总管最大直径的测量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]EUS对胆总管结石的诊断优于MRCP,尤其对MRCP显示阴性的胆总管结石有独特的优势;二者对于扩张胆总管直径的测量,无显著差异。     

中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值对中国人群卒中相关性肺炎诊断价值的Meta分析

目的 系统评价中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值（NLR）对中国人群卒中相关性肺炎（SAP）的诊断价值。方法 计算机检索Pubmed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library、Wiley、中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库中NLR对中国人群SAP诊断价值的相关文献，检索时间自建库至2022年5月。提取纳入文献的资料，采用诊断性试验评价工具QUADAS-2进行文献质量评价，运用Stata 17.0进行Meta分析。结果 共纳入14篇文献，总样本量为3 966例。Meta分析结果显示，NLR诊断中国人群SAP的合并灵敏度为0.79[95%CI(0.73,0.83)]，合并特异度为0.80[95%CI(0.73,0.86)]，合并阳性似然比为4.00[95%CI(2.80,5.70)]，合并阴性似然比为0.27[95%CI(0.21,0.34)]，合并诊断比值比（DOR）为15.10[95%CI(8.98,25.40)]，拟合受试者工作特征（SROC）曲线分析结果显示，NLR诊断中国人群SAP的AUC为0.86[95%CI(0.82,0.88)]...     

超声内镜对胆总管结石的诊断价值

目的探讨超声内镜(EUS)对胆总管结石的诊断价值。方法选取2017年6月-2019月4月就诊于安徽医科大学第一附属医院并疑诊胆总管结石患者98例。患者在院期间行EUS及磁共振胰胆管造影(MRCP)检查。以开腹探查/腹腔镜胆总管探查及经内镜逆行胰胆管造影/内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术结果为金标准。将EUS、MRCP及二者联合诊断(以EUS与MRCP任一阳性则为阳性,二者均阴性则为阴性)结果分别与金标准相比较,计算3种检查方法的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及诊断准确度。以上指标差别比较采用χ2检验。结果 98例患者中EUS组阳性共92例,假阳性5例;阴性共6例,假阴性3例。MRCP组阳性69例,假阳性2例;阴性29例,假阴性23例。联合组阳性94例,假阳性5例;阴性4例,假阴性1例。EUS组灵敏度明显高于MRCP组(96. 67%vs 74. 44%,χ2=17. 982,P 0. 05); EUS组与联合组灵敏度差异无统计学意义(96. 67%vs 98. 89%,χ2=1. 023,P=0. 312)。微小结石(≤0. 5cm)疑诊患者共52例,EUS组阳性51例,假阳性3例;阴性1例,假阴性1例。MRCP组阳性36例,假阳性1例;阴性16例,假阴性14例;联合组阳性52例,假阳性3例。EUS诊断灵敏度明显高于MRCP组(97. 96%vs 71. 43%,χ2=13. 303,P 0. 05);EUS与联合检查灵敏度差异无统计学意义(97. 96%vs 100%,P=1. 0)。结论在诊断胆总管结石方面,EUS具有明显优势,尤其在胆总管微小结石中,EUS有较高的诊断价值,可作为有创操作前的首选检查方法。     

微小核糖核酸作为急性脑梗死诊断标志物的Meta分析

目的:通过Meta分析方法,分析miRNA作为急性脑梗死诊断标志物的价值。方法:检索Medline、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library Database、万方数据库、中国学术期刊网全文数据库(CNKI)和维普数据库(VIP)相关文献,检索时间从建库至2018年12月。纳入的研究通过诊断准确性研究质量评价工具(QUADAS)进行质量评价,并采用Stata 14和Meta-Disc 1.4进行Meta分析,采用随机效应模型合并分析灵敏度(SEN)、特异度(SPE)、阳性似然比(PLR)、阴性似然比(NLR)和诊断比势比(DOR)。通过受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线和曲线下面积(AUC)估计整体检验效能。结果:最终共纳入19个研究,包含急性脑梗死患者1543例,对照组1037例。整体miRNA诊断急性脑梗死的SEN、SPE分别为0.82(95%CI:0.80~0.83)、0.81(95%CI:0.79~0.83),PLR为5.19(95%CI:3.61~7.47),NLR是0.24(95%CI:0.20~0.30),DOR为24.01(95%CI:14.92~38.64)。SROC曲线的AUC为0.89。结论:在诊断急性期脑梗死方面,miRNA具有较高的灵敏度,是较好的诊断标志物。     

内镜超声在非确定性胆总管结石经内镜 逆行胰胆管造影术前的应用价值

目的研究非确定性胆总管结石患者在经内镜逆行胰胆管造影（endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP）术前行内镜超声检查术（endoscopic ultrasound,EUS）的临床价值。方法回顾性分析2017年1月—2019年12月天津市南开医院因临床表现和磁共振胰胆管成像术（magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP）结果不相符的132例非确定性胆总管结石患者的资料。将患者分为A、B两组：A组MRCP显示有结石、临床表现可疑无结石,B组MRCP显示无结石、临床表现可疑有结石。患者均行EUS,根据EUS结果决定是否行ERCP,以ERCP结果和随访结果为金标准分析EUS的诊断准确率。结果132例患者经诊断金标准最终确认胆总管结石阳性87例,阴性45例。44例（33.3%）患者EUS阴性,经随访结果确认无结石,避免了不必要的ERCP。EUS诊断胆总管结石的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为95.40%（83/87）、97.78%（44/45）、96.21%（127/132）、98.81%（83/84）、91.67%（44/48）,MRCP诊断胆总管结石的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为66.67%（58/87）、82.22%（37/45）、71.97%（95/132）、87.88%（58/66）、56.06%（37/66）。两者灵敏度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值相比,差异均有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）。EUS对胆总管结石的诊断和最终诊断结果具有显著一致性（Kappa=0.917,P＜0.001）,MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断和最终诊断结果一致性较好（Kappa=0.439,P＜0.001）。EUS对A组MRCP假阳性的检出率高于对B组MRCP假阴性的检出率[8/8比89.66%（26/29）,P＜0.001]。结论EUS对非确定性胆总管结石的诊断优于MRCP,ERCP术前应用EUS可减少不必要的ERCP操作或避免结石遗漏。     

EUS和MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断价值

目的比较超声内镜(EUS)和磁共振胰胆管成像(MRCP)对胆总管结石的临床诊断价值。方法回顾性分析2011年4月至2013年4月我院诊治的65例胆总管扩张患者的临床资料,比较分析EUS、MRCP检查结果,比较两者对胆总管下段结石诊断的准确率、敏感性及特异性。结果 65例患者中,经手术或ERCP证实合并胆总管结石56例,EUS和MRCP诊断胆总管结石准确率分别为93.8%和83.1%,敏感性分别为94.6%和85.7%,特异性分别为88.9%和66.7%。通过计算Youden指数,JEUS=0.89;JMRCP=0.76,说明EUS在胆总管结石的诊断价值要高于MRCP。结论 EUS诊断胆总管结石较MRCP具有敏感性、特异性及准确性高的优势。     

粪便抗原检测儿童及青少年幽门螺杆菌感染诊断试验的系统评价

目的:采用Meta分析的方法评价幽门螺杆菌粪便抗原( H pylori stool antigen,HpSA)诊断儿童H pylori感染的价值,为临床应用提供依据.方法:以"幽门螺杆菌"、"儿童""诊断性试验"、"粪便抗原"、"诊断准确性"为检索词,通过联机检索CNKI中国期刊全文数据库、CBM中国生物医学文献数据库,文献追溯和手工检索的方法收集发表时间为1998-01/2008-05国内正式刊物上公开发表的有关评价粪便抗原检测H pylori感染准确性的相关研究文献.按确定的纳入、排除标准进行筛选,采用QUADAS工具对纳入的文献进行质量评价,应用MetaDisc1.4软件进行Meta分析,综合评价灵敏度、特异度、似然比、诊断优势比和SROC曲线下面积、Q*指数等指标.结果:共17篇文献符合纳入标准,各研究间具有同质性.共累计样本含量1466例,由金标准确诊H pylori感染737例,非感染729例.Me t a分析结果显示各研究之间的一致性较高,粪便抗原诊断H pylori感染的合并敏感度、特异度分别是92%(95%CI 90%-94%)和92%(95%CI 90%-94%);合并阳性似然比、阴性似然比分别为11.44(95%CI 8.83-14.81)和0.10(95%CI 0.08-0.13).合并诊断优势比DOR126.14(84.84-187.55).绘制SROC曲线,估计SROC曲线下面积AUC = 0.9696,Q* =0.9193.结论:粪便抗原检测儿童及青少年H pylori感染的方法准确度较高.     

小探头超声内镜诊断早期胃癌浸润深度准确性的Meta分析

目的对小探头超声内镜诊断早期胃癌浸润深度的准确性进行定量系统评价。 方法检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、CNKI、万方、维普数据库检索相关文献。对纳入的文献用Stata 14.2软件进行meta分析,得出汇总敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、诊断优势比及其95% CI,绘制总受试者工作特征曲线(SROC),并计算曲线下面积(AUC)等,评估其诊断价值。 结果共纳入文献16篇,包括3 168例病灶,汇总敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、诊断优势比及其95% CI分别是0.85(95% CI：0.78～0.90),0.73(95% CI：0.65～0.80),3.2(95% CI：2.4～4.1),0.20(95% CI：0.14～0.30),16(95% CI：9～26),SROC曲线下面积为0.85。 结论小探头超声内镜虽不能准确诊断早期胃癌M/SM1层浸润,但仍能很大程度提高对早期胃癌浸润深度的正确判断。     

Diagnostic performance of the current risk-stratified approach with computed tomography for suspected choledocholithiasis and its options when negative finding

BackgroundSeveral studies evaluated the current guideline of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and reported only suboptimal accuracy. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the ASGE guideline based on computed tomography (CT) and role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis but negative CT finding.MethodsPatients with suspected choledocholithiasis undergoing ERCP between January 2016 and January 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent CT to detect choledocholithiasis. EUS or MRCP was performed when the CT scan showed negative findings. Patients were classified into the high and intermediate-risk groups, based on predictors from the ASGE criteria.ResultsOf 583 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis, 340 (58.3%) had stones on ERCP (65.9% in the high-risk group and 40.6% in the intermediate-risk group). The accuracy of ASGE guideline for CT was 63.98% (79.12% sensitivity, 42.80% specificity) and 36.02% (20.88% sensitivity, 57.20% specificity) in the high-risk and intermediate-risk groups, respectively. In 103 patients in the high-risk group underwent both CT and US, the accuracy of CT was higher than that of US for detecting choledocholithiasis (78.64% vs. 53.40%), with a significant difference in area under the curve (AUC) (0.78 vs. 0.59, P < 0.001). Of 339 with negative CT finding, the accuracy of EUS was higher than that of MRCP (90.91% vs. 82.76%), but with no significant difference in AUC (0.91 vs. 0.83, P = 0.347).ConclusionsCT-based ASGE guideline showed superior diagnostic performance than US for predicting choledocholithiasis. The diagnostic options, EUS or MRCP, with negative CT finding showed comparable performance. Therefore, the diagnostic modality should be selected based on availability, experience, cost, and contraindications.     

EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND: Numerous published studies have shown the high diagnostic performance of both EUS and MRCP compared with ERCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis. DESIGN: We undertook a systematic review of all published randomized, prospective trials that compared EUS with MRCP with the primary aim being to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy for the detection of choledocholithiasis in patients with suspected biliary disease. METHODS: A MEDLINE review was performed. We identified 5 randomized, prospective, blinded trials comparing MRCP and EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis, with subsequent ERCP or intraoperative cholangiography as a criterion standard. The study-specific variables for EUS and MRCP for choledocholithiasis were calculated from the data, and analyses were performed by using aggregated variables (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios). RESULTS: The pooled data set consisted of 301 patients. The aggregated sensitivities of EUS and MRCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis were 0.93 and 0.85, respectively, whereas their specificities were 0.96 and 0.93, respectively. The aggregated positive predictive values for EUS and MRCP were 0.93 and 0.87, respectively, with the corresponding negative predictive values of 0.96 and 0.92, respectively. Positive likelihood ratios were >10 for both tests, and corresponding negative likelihood ratios approached 0.10 for both tests. No statistically significant differences between EUS and MRCP were found in our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic performance overall. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the modalities. We recommend taking into consideration other factors, such as resource availability, experience, and cost considerations in deciding between these 2 tests.     

Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography? A systematic review

There is a lack of consensus on the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis after a negative transabdominal ultrasound and/or computed tomography. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP) in patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones. A search, using the following terms 'MRCP', 'EUS' and 'Choledocholithiasis' in Pubmed and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, was performed. Abstract books and reference list of review articles, as well as relevant studies, were also searched to complete our EUS versus MRCP for choledocholithiasis comparison studies database. The analysis demonstrated that, with respect to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, there was no statistically significant difference between EUS and MRCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis. Our meta-analysis of prospective comparison of MRCP and EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis yielded statistically similar diagnostic values for both techniques.     

血管内皮生长因子对恶性胸腔积液诊断价值的Meta分析

目的运用Meta分析的方法综合评估血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值。方法通过计算机检索Best Evidence、Cochrane library、Pub Med、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、维普数据库(VIP)、万方数据库等,并结合网上查询(www.google.cn;www.baidu.com)及文献追溯等方法,收集2000年1月至2016年5月国内外发表的相关文献进行筛选、质量评价及资料提取后,采用Meta-Disc 1.4和Rev Man 5.3软件进行资料分析,并通过汇总各研究的灵敏度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、诊断比值比以及绘制总的受试者工作曲线(SROC)评估VEGF对恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值。结果共搜索文献747篇,最终纳入10篇,样本量为893例患者,包括468例恶性胸腔积液及425例良性胸腔积液。VEGF诊断恶性胸腔积液的汇总灵敏度为0.72(95%CI 0.67,0.76),汇总特异度为0.80(95%CI 0.75,0.83),汇总阳性似然比为3.81(95%CI2.40,6.06),汇总阴性似然比为0.37(95%CI 0.28,0.48),汇总诊断比值比为12.79(95%CI 6.33,25.84),SROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.8384。结论 VEGF诊断恶性胸腔积液具有较高的灵敏度和特异度,可作为恶性胸腔积液非侵入性诊断的辅助工具。     

超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检对胰腺实性占位定性诊断价值的Meta分析

目的:系统评价超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)在胰腺实性占位定性诊断中的价值.方法:计算机检索MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、中国学术期刊全文等数据库,检索时间均为建库至2011-10.全面查找有关EUS-FNA诊断胰腺实性占位的文献,按照诊断试验的纳入标准筛选文献,提取纳入文献的特征信息(研究背景、设计信息和诊断参数信息),根据QUADAS质量评价标准纳入文献的质量.采用Meta-Disc1.4软件进行Meta分析,检验异质性,并根据异质性结果选择相应的效应模型.对纳入文献予以加权定量合并,计算汇总敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和诊断优势比及其95%CI,绘制汇总受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线,并计算曲线下面积(AUC).结果:共检索出相关文献280篇,按照文献纳入标准,最终纳入18篇文献(均为英文文献).EUS-FNA对胰腺实性占位定性诊断价值分别为:汇总敏感度为0.90[95%CI(0.89-0.92)],汇总特异度为0.95[95%CI(0.93-0.97)],汇总阳性似然比为13.56[95%CI(8.31-22.15)],汇总阴性似然比为0.12[95%CI(0.10-0.15)],汇总诊断优势比为143.62[95%CI(93.98-219.46)],SROC曲线下面积AUC为0.9711,Q*=0.9215.另外,本研究还对有无病理医生在场指导进行了亚组分析,发现有病理医生在场的AUC为0.9757,Q*=0.9295.且汇总诊断优势比173.37[95%CI(98.09-306.44)],明显较无病理医生在场的113.64[95%CI(60.22-214.46)]高.结论:经SROC曲线证实,EUS-FNA活检在胰腺实性占位定性诊断中具有较高的灵敏度和特异度,尤其是有病理医生在场指导的情况下,可作为临床上胰腺实性占位定性诊断的重要检查手段.     

SDC2基因甲基化对结直肠癌诊断价值的Meta分析

目的 通过Meta分析方法评价多配体蛋白聚糖2(Syndecan-2,SDC2)基因甲基化作为生物标志物诊断结直肠癌(colorectal cancer,CRC)的价值.方法 计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、Web of Science、CBM、万方、知网、维普数据库,查找建库至...     

EUS: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND: EUS has been proposed as a less invasive means of diagnosing choledocholithiasis and may eliminate the need for ERCP and its associated risks. The literature pertaining to EUS for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis reports widely varying sensitivities and specificities. OBJECTIVE: To more precisely estimate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in suspected choledocholithiasis. DESIGN: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were used to identify prospective cohort studies in which the results of EUS were compared with the results of an acceptable criterion standard, including ERCP, intraoperative cholangiography, or surgical exploration. Two independent reviewers extracted standardized data and assessed trial quality. A random effects model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed. All predefined potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. PATIENTS: A total of 2673 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis were reported in 27 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: EUS had a high overall pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.96), a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96), and an area under the curve of 0.98. Three variables appeared to yield a higher DOR: a higher disease prevalence, an adequate time interval between index test and criterion standards, and the presence of verification bias. LIMITATIONS: Misclassification of patients by imperfect criterion standards could potentially underestimate the performance of an EUS. CONCLUSIONS: An EUS is a noninvasive test, with excellent overall sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing choledocholithiasis. An EUS should, therefore, be used to select patients for a therapeutic ERCP to minimize the risk of complications associated with unnecessary diagnostic ERCP.     

Endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle biopsy for the diagnosis of intrathoracic lymph node metastases from extrathoracic malignancies: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancies are a common clinical manifestation. Several studies evaluating intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancy by using the endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) have been reported. The objective of this meta‐analysis is to investigate the diagnostic value of EBUS‐TBNA for diagnosing intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancies. We systematically searched Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase for relevant studies published prior to May 2013. Studies specifically designed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EBUS‐TBNA for intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with an extrathoracic malignancy were selected. Diagnostic accuracy meta‐analysis was conducted by pooling estimates of sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) derived from a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis of the original studies. Six studies were included, which provided a dataset of 533 patients. EBUS‐TBNA pooled estimates had 0.85 sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80–0.89), 0.99 specificity (95% CI: 0.95–1.00), PLR 28.63 (95% CI: 11.51–71.22) and NLR 0.16 (95% CI: 0.12–0.21). The overall DOR was 179.77 (95% CI: 66.29–487.50). The area under the SROC curve and the diagnostic accuracy were 0.9247 and 0.8588, respectively. Evidence gathered from studies of moderate quality reveals a high degree of diagnostic accuracy of EBUS‐TBNA for diagnosing intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancies.     

Diagnostic value of the soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells‐1 in lower respiratory tract infections: A meta‐analysis

The soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells‐1 (sTREM‐1) is a promising diagnostic marker for many types of infections. A bivariate meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate its diagnostic value for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (from January 1966 to August 2013) for all trials assessing diagnostic value of sTREM‐1 for LRTI. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio(PLR), negative likelihood ratio(NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the area under summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve and the Q* were calculated. Thirteen studies with 1138 patients were included in our meta‐analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of sTREM‐1 for diagnosis of LRTI was 0.84 and 0.77. The PLR, NLR and DOR were 3.6, 0.21 and 17. The area under SROC curve was 0.88 and the Q* was 0.82. The univariate meta‐regression analysis demonstrated that the assay method for sTREM‐1 significantly affected sensitivity for LRTI. The Q* of sTREM‐1 for diagnosis of community‐acquired LRTI was 0.82, and the area under SROC curve was 0.88. The Q* of sTREM‐1 in diagnosis of hospital‐acquired LRTI was 0.83, and the area under SROC curve was 0.90. The Q* of sTREM‐1 for distinguishing culture‐positive LRTI from culture‐negative diseases was 0.79, and the area under SROC curve was 0.86. Current evidence suggests that sTREM‐1 is an accurate marker of LRTI. The overall diagnostic value of sTREM‐1 for LRTI, community‐acquired LRTI and hospital‐acquired LRTI is similar.