Su1311 Needle-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (nCLE) for Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. AB347
Author(s):  
Venkata Rajesh Konjeti ◽  
Tarun Rustagi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Cystic Lesions

scholarly journals EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Bojan Kovacevic ◽  
Giulio Antonelli ◽  
Pia Klausen ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Alberto Larghi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Cystic Lesions ◽  
Guided Biopsy

33 Needle-Base Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in the Diagnosis of Pancreas Cyst: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. S19-S20
Author(s):  
Phonthep Angsuwatcharakon ◽  
Irina M. Cazacu ◽  
Ben S. Singh ◽  
Rungsun Rerknimitr ◽  
Pradermchai Kongkam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Pancreas Cyst

Su2072 Diagnostic Yield in the Pancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Tract of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S627
Author(s):  
Alessandro Fugazza ◽  
Federica Gaiani ◽  
Maria Clotilde Carra ◽  
Michaël Levy ◽  
Iradj Sobhani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gastrointestinal Tract ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for the Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 12390
Author(s):  
Sneha Sethi ◽  
Xiangqun Ju ◽  
Richard M. Logan ◽  
Paul Sambrook ◽  
Robert A. McLaughlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Likelihood Ratios

Background: Advances in treatment approaches for patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have been unsuccessful in preventing frequent recurrences and distant metastases, leading to a poor prognosis. Early detection and prevention enable an improved 5-year survival and better prognosis. Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE) is a non-invasive imaging instrument that could enable an earlier diagnosis and possibly help in reducing unnecessary invasive surgical procedures. Objective: To present an up to date systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CLE in diagnosing OSCC. Materials and Methods. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were explored up to 30 June 2021, to collect articles concerning the diagnosis of OSCC through CLE. Screening: data extraction and appraisal was done by two reviewers. The quality of the methodology followed by the studies included in this review was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Six studies were included, leading to a total number of 361 lesions in 213 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI, 92–97%; I2 = 77.5%) and 93% (95% CI, 90–95%; I2 = 68.6%); the pooled positive likelihood ratios and negative likelihood ratios were 10.85 (95% CI, 5.4–21.7; I2 = 55.9%) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03–0.2; I2 = 83.5%); and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 174.45 (95% CI, 34.51–881.69; I2 = 73.6%). Although risk of bias and heterogeneity is observed, this study validates that CLE may have a noteworthy clinical influence on the diagnosis of OSCC, through its high sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: This review indicates an exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity of CLE for diagnosing OSCC. Whilst it is a promising diagnostic instrument, the limited number of existing studies and potential risk of bias of included studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. A conclusive inference can be drawn when more studies, possibly with homogeneous methodological approach, are performed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document