Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound likely does not improve diagnostic adequacy during endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Marie Anne Engh , Brigitta Teutsch , Alexander Schulze Wenning , Yael Hadani , Omer Almog , Dániel Sándor Veres , Péter Hegyi , Bálint Erőss
{"title":"Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound likely does not improve diagnostic adequacy during endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Marie Anne Engh ,&nbsp;Brigitta Teutsch ,&nbsp;Alexander Schulze Wenning ,&nbsp;Yael Hadani ,&nbsp;Omer Almog ,&nbsp;Dániel Sándor Veres ,&nbsp;Péter Hegyi ,&nbsp;Bálint Erőss","doi":"10.1016/j.pan.2024.04.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p>Solid pancreatic masses are sampled through tissue acquisition by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Inadequate samples may significantly delay diagnosis, increasing costs and carrying risks to the patients. Aim: assess the diagnostic adequacy of tissue acquisition using contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) compared to conventional EUS.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched in November 2023. Studies comparing diagnostic adequacy, accuracy and safety using CEH-EUS versus conventional EUS for tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies, level of evidence using the GRADE approach, Odds Ratios (RR) with 95 % Confidence Intervals (CI) calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. I<sup>2</sup> quantified heterogeneity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The search identified 3858 records; nine studies (1160 patients) were included. OR for achieving an adequate sample was 1.467 (CI: 0.850–2.533), for randomized trials 0.902 (CI: 0.541–1.505), for non-randomized 2.396 (CI: 0.916–6.264), with significant subgroup difference. OR for diagnostic accuracy was 1.326 (CI: 0.890–1977), for randomized trials 0.997 (CI: 0.593–1.977) and for non-randomized studies 1.928 (CI: 1.096–3.393), significant subgroup difference (p = 0.0467). No differences were observed for technical failures or adverse events. Heterogeneity was low, risk of bias “low” to “some concerns” for most outcomes, mostly moderate for non-randomized studies.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Non-randomized studies indicated differences in favor of contrast-enhanced EUS, randomized studies showed no difference in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy or sensitivity when using CEH-EUS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19976,"journal":{"name":"Pancreatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1424390324001054/pdfft?md5=519e7d909b39fbb97b8faed596de56e9&pid=1-s2.0-S1424390324001054-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancreatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1424390324001054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims

Solid pancreatic masses are sampled through tissue acquisition by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Inadequate samples may significantly delay diagnosis, increasing costs and carrying risks to the patients. Aim: assess the diagnostic adequacy of tissue acquisition using contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) compared to conventional EUS.

Methods

Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched in November 2023. Studies comparing diagnostic adequacy, accuracy and safety using CEH-EUS versus conventional EUS for tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies, level of evidence using the GRADE approach, Odds Ratios (RR) with 95 % Confidence Intervals (CI) calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. I2 quantified heterogeneity.

Results

The search identified 3858 records; nine studies (1160 patients) were included. OR for achieving an adequate sample was 1.467 (CI: 0.850–2.533), for randomized trials 0.902 (CI: 0.541–1.505), for non-randomized 2.396 (CI: 0.916–6.264), with significant subgroup difference. OR for diagnostic accuracy was 1.326 (CI: 0.890–1977), for randomized trials 0.997 (CI: 0.593–1.977) and for non-randomized studies 1.928 (CI: 1.096–3.393), significant subgroup difference (p = 0.0467). No differences were observed for technical failures or adverse events. Heterogeneity was low, risk of bias “low” to “some concerns” for most outcomes, mostly moderate for non-randomized studies.

Conclusion

Non-randomized studies indicated differences in favor of contrast-enhanced EUS, randomized studies showed no difference in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy or sensitivity when using CEH-EUS.

对比度增强型内窥镜超声可能不会提高内窥镜超声引导下组织采集的诊断充分性:系统回顾和元分析
背景和目的通过内窥镜超声(EUS)采集胰腺肿块组织样本。样本不足可能会大大延误诊断,增加费用并给患者带来风险。目的:与传统 EUS 相比,评估使用对比增强谐波内镜超声(CEH-EUS)采集组织的诊断充分性。方法在 2023 年 11 月检索了五个数据库(PubMed、Embase、CENTRAL、Scopus 和 Web of Science)。纳入的研究比较了使用 CEH-EUS 与传统 EUS 获取胰腺实性肿块组织的诊断充分性、准确性和安全性。对随机对照试验采用偏倚风险工具(RoB2)评估偏倚风险,对非随机研究采用非随机干预研究偏倚风险工具(ROBINS-I)评估偏倚风险,采用GRADE方法评估证据水平,计算出带有95%置信区间(CI)的比值比(RR),并采用随机效应模型进行汇总。I2 对异质性进行了量化。结果搜索发现了 3858 条记录;纳入了 9 项研究(1160 名患者)。获得足够样本的 OR 为 1.467(CI:0.850-2.533),随机试验的 OR 为 0.902(CI:0.541-1.505),非随机试验的 OR 为 2.396(CI:0.916-6.264),亚组差异显著。诊断准确性的 OR 为 1.326(CI:0.890-1977),随机试验为 0.997(CI:0.593-1.977),非随机研究为 1.928(CI:1.096-3.393),亚组差异显著(p = 0.0467)。在技术失败或不良事件方面未观察到差异。异质性较低,大多数结果的偏倚风险从 "低 "到 "有一些问题 "不等,非随机研究的偏倚风险大多为中度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pancreatology
Pancreatology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
194
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Pancreatology is the official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP), the European Pancreatic Club (EPC) and several national societies and study groups around the world. Dedicated to the understanding and treatment of exocrine as well as endocrine pancreatic disease, this multidisciplinary periodical publishes original basic, translational and clinical pancreatic research from a range of fields including gastroenterology, oncology, surgery, pharmacology, cellular and molecular biology as well as endocrinology, immunology and epidemiology. Readers can expect to gain new insights into pancreatic physiology and into the pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapeutic approaches and prognosis of pancreatic diseases. The journal features original articles, case reports, consensus guidelines and topical, cutting edge reviews, thus representing a source of valuable, novel information for clinical and basic researchers alike.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信