Letter to the editor on “Perfluorobutane contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the diagnosis of HCC: a systematic review and meta-analysis”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiangfeng Wu ◽  
Lijing Ge ◽  
Lili Lu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography

scholarly journals Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052830
Author(s):  
Lizhang Xun ◽  
Lamei Zhai ◽  
Hui Xu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Doppler Us ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Ovarian Masses

ObjectivesTo assess the value of conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) (conventional ultrasonography (US), Doppler US and CEUS) for diagnosing ovarian cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies published until October 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessed the diagnostic value of conventional US, Doppler US or CEUS for detecting ovarian cancer, with no restrictions placed on published language and status.Data extraction and synthesisThe study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using the bivariate generalised linear mixed model and random effects model.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 72 studies and involved 9296 women who presented with ovarian masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for conventional US were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.91), 6.87 (95% CI: 4.98 to 9.49) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15), 57.52 (95% CI: 36.64 to 90.28) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for Doppler US were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.89), 6.10 (95% CI: 4.59 to 8.11) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.11), 61.76 (95% CI: 39.99 to 95.37) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for CEUS were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.95), 11.47 (95% CI: 6.52 to 20.17) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09), 152.11 (95% CI: 77.77 to 297.51) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), respectively. Moreover, the AUC values for conventional US (p=0.002) and Doppler US (p=0.005) were inferior to those of CEUS.ConclusionsConventional US, Doppler US and CEUS have a relatively high differential diagnostic value for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to that of conventional US and Doppler US.

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Determining the Diagnostic Utility of Lumbar Punctures in CT Negative Suspected Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

2021 ◽  
Vol 147 ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Hernán Vergara-Burgos ◽  
Ivan Lozada-Martínez ◽  
Yelson Picón-Jaimes ◽  
Luis Moscote-Salazar ◽  
Moshiur Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Utility ◽  
Letter To The Editor
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document