UNASSIGNED:在唾液腺肿瘤的弹性成像检测的临床实践中仍然是一个有争议的问题。本Meta分析的目的是评价超声弹性成像对唾液腺肿瘤的诊断效果,并比较超声弹性成像与常规超声在唾液腺肿瘤诊断中的诊断价值。
未经评估:通过PubMed进行全面的文献检索,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆从成立到2021年11月。两名研究人员使用标准数据提取表格独立地从注册论文中提取数据。汇集的敏感性,特异性,正似然比(PLR),负似然比(NLR),诊断优势比(DOR),计算曲线下面积(AUC)以评估弹性成像的诊断性能.诊断准确性研究质量评估-2(QUADAS-2)工具用于评估每个纳入研究的质量。使用Meta-DiSc1.4版、ReviewManager5.3版和StataSE15版。
UNASSIGNED:这项荟萃分析纳入了16项研究,共1105例患者,1146个病灶。汇集的敏感性,特异性,PLR,NLR,超声弹性成像鉴别涎腺良恶性肿瘤的DOR为0.73(95CI,0.66~0.78),0.64(95CI,0.61-0.67),2.83(95CI,1.97-4.07),0.45(95CI,0.32-0.62),和9.86(95CI,4.49-21.62),分别,AUC为0.82。四项研究提供了有关常规超声区分良性和恶性唾液腺肿瘤的数据。汇集的敏感性,特异性,DOR为0.62(95CI,0.50-0.73),0.93(95CI,0.90-0.96),和25.07(95CI,4.28-146.65),分别。荟萃回归和亚组分析发现,评估方法与显著的异质性相关,定量或半定量弹性成像的效果优于定性。
UNASSIGNED:弹性超声检查显示对恶性唾液腺肿瘤的诊断价值有限;它可以被认为是常规超声的补充诊断技术,定量或半定量弹性成像优于定性。
UNASSIGNED: The clinical practice of elastosonography for the detection of salivary gland tumors is still a controversial issue. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of elastosonography for the diagnosis of salivary gland tumors and to compare the diagnostic value of elastosonography and conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of salivary gland tumors.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was carried out from inception to November 2021. Two researchers independently extracted the data from the enrolled papers using a standard data extraction form. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of elastosonography. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study. Meta-DiSc version 1.4, Review Manager 5.3, and StataSE 15 were used.
UNASSIGNED: Sixteen studies with a total of 1105 patients with 1146 lesions were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of elastosonography for the differentiation between benign and malignant salivary gland tumors were 0.73 (95%CI, 0.66-0.78), 0.64 (95%CI, 0.61-0.67), 2.83 (95%CI, 1.97-4.07), 0.45 (95%CI, 0.32-0.62), and 9.86 (95%CI, 4.49-21.62), respectively, with an AUC of 0.82. Four studies provided data regarding the conventional ultrasound for the differentiation between benign and malignant salivary gland tumors. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were 0.62 (95%CI, 0.50-0.73), 0.93 (95%CI, 0.90-0.96), and 25.07 (95%CI, 4.28-146.65), respectively. The meta-regression and subgroup analyses found that assessment methods were associated with significant heterogeneity, and quantitative or semiquantitative elastosonography performed better than the qualitative one.
UNASSIGNED: Elastosonography showed a limited value for diagnosing malignant salivary gland tumors; it could be considered as a supplementary diagnostic technology to conventional ultrasound, and quantitative or semiquantitative elastosonography was superior to the qualitative one.