■挥发性有机化合物(VOC)的检测可以为早期发现和监测结直肠癌提供潜在的诊断方式。然而,拟议试验的总体诊断准确性仍不确定.
■本系统综述旨在确定使用VOC分析技术和电子鼻(e-noses)作为临床实践领域内结直肠癌的非侵入性诊断方法的诊断准确性。
■在PubMed上进行了系统搜索,EMBASE,WebofScience,和Cochrane图书馆审查从开始到2023年9月1日发表的相关研究。仅包括对人类受试者进行的研究。使用双变量模型进行荟萃分析,以获得敏感性的汇总估计,特异性,以及正负似然比。诊断准确性研究2的质量评估工具已用于质量评估。这次系统审查的方案在PROSPERO注册,PRISMA指南用于识别,筛选,资格,和选择过程。
■这篇综述涵盖了32项研究,22项VOC分析研究和9项电子鼻研究,两者都有一个,共有4688名受试者参与分析。VOC分析用于CRC检测的合并敏感性和特异性分别为0.88(95%CI,0.83-0.92)和0.85(95%CI,0.78-0.90),分别。在电子鼻的情况下,合并敏感性为0.87(95%CI,0.83-0.90),合并特异性为0.78(95%CI,0.62-0.88).VOC分析和电子鼻的受试者工作特征分析(ROC)曲线下面积分别为0.93(95%CI,0.90-0.95)和0.90(95%CI,0.87-0.92),分别。
■本综述的结果证实了VOC分析和电子鼻技术在检测CRC方面的良好准确性。VOC分析在诊断CRC方面比电子鼻具有更高的特异性,并且灵敏度与电子鼻相当。然而,许多限制,包括适度的样本量,缺乏标准化的收集方法,缺乏外部验证,以及明显的偏见风险,已确定。因此,迫切需要扩张,多中心临床研究阐明VOC分析或电子鼻在结直肠癌非侵入性诊断中的适用性和可重复性。
■https://www.crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/#recordDetails,标识符CRD42023398465。
UNASSIGNED: The detection of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) could provide a potential diagnostic modality for the early detection and surveillance of colorectal cancers. However, the overall diagnostic accuracy of the proposed tests remains uncertain.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review is to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of using VOC analysis techniques and electronic noses (e-noses) as noninvasive diagnostic methods for colorectal cancer within the realm of clinical practice.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search was undertaken on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to scrutinize pertinent studies published from their inception to September 1, 2023. Only studies conducted on human subjects were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was deployed for quality assessment. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, and PRISMA guidelines were used for the identification, screening, eligibility, and selection process.
UNASSIGNED: This review encompassed 32 studies, 22 studies for VOC analysis and 9 studies for e-nose, one for both, with a total of 4688 subjects in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of VOC analysis for CRC detection were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90), respectively. In the case of e-nose, the pooled sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88). The area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) curve for VOC analysis and e-noses were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92), respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The outcomes of this review substantiate the commendable accuracy of VOC analysis and e-nose technology in detecting CRC. VOC analysis has a higher specificity than e-nose for the diagnosis of CRC and a sensitivity comparable to that of e-nose. However, numerous limitations, including a modest sample size, absence of standardized collection methods, lack of external validation, and a notable risk of bias, were identified. Consequently, there exists an imperative need for expansive, multi-center clinical studies to elucidate the applicability and reproducibility of VOC analysis or e-nose in the noninvasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42023398465.