scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
E. J. Bass ◽  
A. Pantovic ◽  
M. J. Connor ◽  
S. Loeb ◽  
A. R. Rastinehad ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa. Methods A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Results For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies. Conclusions In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 3503-3511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Min Kim ◽  
Jin-Man Jung ◽  
Bum Joon Kim ◽  
Ji-Sung Lee ◽  
Sun U. Kwon

Background and Purpose— We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of cilostazol as a mono or combination (plus aspirin or clopidogrel) treatments compared to conventional single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT, mainly aspirin) for secondary stroke prevention. Methods— Randomized controlled trial studies were searched across multiple comprehensive databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) for review. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke comprising ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes included ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and composite outcomes. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the identified reports, including 2 recently published randomized controlled trials. In addition, network meta-analysis was performed to compare the relative effects of mono versus combination cilostazol treatments. Results— Ten studies were included in this review, 5 of which were assigned to the cilostazol mono group (n=5429) and the other 5 to the combination group (n=2456). The relative risks of recurrent stroke, ischemic stroke, and composite outcomes with cilostazol mono as well as combination treatments were significantly lower than with SAPT without any significant heterogeneity. An indirect comparison of these 3 outcomes revealed the cilostazol combination approach to be superior. The cilostazol mono treatment diminished hemorrhagic stroke more significantly than SAPT and the cilostazol combination did not increase hemorrhagic stroke compared to SAPT. The outcomes from the 2 cilostazol regimens were comparable to SAPT in the case of myocardial infarction. Conclusions— Cilostazol is a more effective and safer treatment option than SAPT approaches using mainly aspirin. Cilostazol regimens can also be modified to clinical situations as this drug reduces recurrent and ischemic stroke more efficiently as a combination therapy but is more beneficial for hemorrhagic stroke as a monotherapy.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu-An Yang ◽  
Ya-Chu Shih ◽  
Jia-Pei Hong ◽  
Chin-Wen Wu ◽  
Chun-De Liao ◽  
...  

Abstract Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) refers to the symptoms and signs caused by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. It can be treated by corticosteroid injection into the carpal tunnel. Two methods for injection have been employed, namely ultrasound-guided and landmark-guided injection. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare these methods in terms of several outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, and data collection was completed on 7 October 7, 2020. Results for continuous variables are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The analysis included eight RCTs published between 2013 and 2019 with a total of 448 patients. Ultrasound-guided injection yielded more favorable results for the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Symptom Severity Scale [SMD = −0.49, 95% CI (−0.74, −0.25), P < 0.0001], Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Functional Status Scale [SMD = −0.24, 95% CI (−0.42, −0.06), P = 0.01], distal motor latency [SMD = −0.36, 95% CI (−0.70, −0.02), P = 0.04], and compound muscle action potential [SMD = 0.38, 95% CI (0.16, 0.61), P = 0.0008] . Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection is recommended for patients with CTS.


BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Gou ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Zheng

Abstract Background A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of nephroscopy and cystoscopy in transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) for bladder stones (BS). Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to January 2021 for studies assessing the effect of different types of endoscopes among patients who underwent TUCL. The search strategy and study selection process were in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Results Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no difference in stone-free rate (RR = 1.00, CI = 0.98–1.02, p = 1.00) between the two groups and nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 1.00), and all patients were rendered stone free. Use of the nephroscope significantly shortened the operative time compared with the cystoscope group (RR= − 26.26, CI = − 35.84 to − 16.68, p < 0.00001), and there was significant heterogeneity (I2= 87%, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in mean urethral entries (RR = 0.66, CI = − 0.71 to − 2.04, p = 0.35), hospitalization (MD = 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.07 to 0.23, p = 0.31) or total complication rate (RR=1.37, 95% CI = 0.47–4.00, p = 0.56) between the two groups. Conclusions In conclusion, this systematic review demonstrates that both nephroscopy and cystoscopy have high stone clearance efficiency, low rates of complications and short hospitalizations. The mean urethral entries depend on the treatment method for large stone fragments. However, the use of nephroscopy can significantly reduce the operative time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document