结肠镜检查和粪便免疫化学检查检测晚期结肠肿瘤的准确性meta分析。

Q3 Medicine
Mohammad Yaghoobi, Parsa Mehraban Far, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Yuhong Yuan, David Armstrong, Lehana Thabane, Paul Moayyedi
{"title":"结肠镜检查和粪便免疫化学检查检测晚期结肠肿瘤的准确性meta分析。","authors":"Mohammad Yaghoobi,&nbsp;Parsa Mehraban Far,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw,&nbsp;Yuhong Yuan,&nbsp;David Armstrong,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane,&nbsp;Paul Moayyedi","doi":"10.34172/mejdd.2023.313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Studies on the use of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal screening have long assumed perfect accuracy for colonoscopy. No study to date has directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy and FIT to detect advanced neoplasia (AN) in a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. <b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive electronic search was performed for a head-to-head comparison of FIT and colonoscopy using a third acceptable reference standard in asymptomatic adults. Cochrane methodology was used to perform a head-to-head diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis. Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. <b>Results:</b> Two studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 98.5 (95% CI 96.3-100%) and 100% (99.9-100%) for colonoscopy and 16.4% (10.3-22.6%) and 95.4% (94.3-96.4%) for FIT. Colonoscopy was significantly better than FIT (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). The positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were 1.75 (1.57-1.96) and 0.03 (0.01-0.08) for colonoscopy and 3.02 (2.01-4.55) and 0.88 (0.82-0.95) for FIT, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> Colonoscopy provides significantly better diagnostic accuracy to detect AN compared with FIT (GRADE: ⨁⨁◯◯). Our study provided precise sensitivity and specificity of both colonoscopy and FIT and a revision in screening policies based on an updated cost-effectiveness analysis considering the results of the head-to-head analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":18517,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases","volume":"15 1","pages":"5-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a3/e7/mejdd-15-5.PMC10404074.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Head-to-Head Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis of Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Yaghoobi,&nbsp;Parsa Mehraban Far,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw,&nbsp;Yuhong Yuan,&nbsp;David Armstrong,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane,&nbsp;Paul Moayyedi\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/mejdd.2023.313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Studies on the use of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal screening have long assumed perfect accuracy for colonoscopy. No study to date has directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy and FIT to detect advanced neoplasia (AN) in a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. <b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive electronic search was performed for a head-to-head comparison of FIT and colonoscopy using a third acceptable reference standard in asymptomatic adults. Cochrane methodology was used to perform a head-to-head diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis. Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. <b>Results:</b> Two studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 98.5 (95% CI 96.3-100%) and 100% (99.9-100%) for colonoscopy and 16.4% (10.3-22.6%) and 95.4% (94.3-96.4%) for FIT. Colonoscopy was significantly better than FIT (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). The positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were 1.75 (1.57-1.96) and 0.03 (0.01-0.08) for colonoscopy and 3.02 (2.01-4.55) and 0.88 (0.82-0.95) for FIT, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> Colonoscopy provides significantly better diagnostic accuracy to detect AN compared with FIT (GRADE: ⨁⨁◯◯). Our study provided precise sensitivity and specificity of both colonoscopy and FIT and a revision in screening policies based on an updated cost-effectiveness analysis considering the results of the head-to-head analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"5-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a3/e7/mejdd-15-5.PMC10404074.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/mejdd.2023.313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/mejdd.2023.313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)在结直肠筛查中的应用研究一直被认为是结肠镜检查的完美准确性。迄今为止,没有研究直接比较结肠镜检查和FIT检测晚期肿瘤(AN)的诊断准确性。方法:在无症状成人中使用第三个可接受的参考标准,对FIT和结肠镜检查进行全面的电子搜索。采用Cochrane方法进行头对头诊断测试准确性(DTA)荟萃分析。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具-2 (QUADAS-2)评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。结果:两项研究符合入选标准。结肠镜检查的总灵敏度和特异性分别为98.5 (95% CI 96.3-100%)和100% (99.9-100%),FIT检查的总灵敏度和特异性分别为16.4%(10.3-22.6%)和95.4%(94.3-96.4%)。结肠镜检查明显优于FIT (P < 0.0001)。结肠镜检查的阳性似然比为1.75(1.57 ~ 1.96),阴性似然比为0.03 (0.01 ~ 0.08);FIT检查的阳性似然比为3.02(2.01 ~ 4.55),阴性似然比为0.88(0.82 ~ 0.95)。结论:结肠镜检查对AN的诊断准确率明显高于FIT (GRADE:)。我们的研究提供了结肠镜检查和FIT的精确敏感性和特异性,并基于更新的成本效益分析,考虑到头对头分析的结果,对筛查政策进行了修订。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Head-to-Head Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis of Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

Head-to-Head Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis of Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

Head-to-Head Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis of Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

Head-to-Head Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysis of Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

Background: Studies on the use of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal screening have long assumed perfect accuracy for colonoscopy. No study to date has directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy and FIT to detect advanced neoplasia (AN) in a head-to-head diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was performed for a head-to-head comparison of FIT and colonoscopy using a third acceptable reference standard in asymptomatic adults. Cochrane methodology was used to perform a head-to-head diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis. Quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. Results: Two studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 98.5 (95% CI 96.3-100%) and 100% (99.9-100%) for colonoscopy and 16.4% (10.3-22.6%) and 95.4% (94.3-96.4%) for FIT. Colonoscopy was significantly better than FIT (P < 0.0001). The positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were 1.75 (1.57-1.96) and 0.03 (0.01-0.08) for colonoscopy and 3.02 (2.01-4.55) and 0.88 (0.82-0.95) for FIT, respectively. Conclusion: Colonoscopy provides significantly better diagnostic accuracy to detect AN compared with FIT (GRADE: ⨁⨁◯◯). Our study provided precise sensitivity and specificity of both colonoscopy and FIT and a revision in screening policies based on an updated cost-effectiveness analysis considering the results of the head-to-head analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases
Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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