scholarly journals Conventional, Doppler and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Masses

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 2398-2408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zongyu Liu ◽  
Fan Yang ◽  
Yong Zhang ◽  
Huimei Yu ◽  
He Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Doppler Us ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography ◽  
Ovarian Masses

Background: Differential diagnosis of ovarian masses can influence both treatment selection and prognosis of ovarian tumor patients. A comprehensive review was performed with respect to the diagnostic value of conventional ultrasonography, Doppler ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian masses. Methods: Databases were searched for relevant articles. Retrieved studies were screened according to the inclusion criteria. Pooled statistics including specificity, sensitivity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under curve (AUC) were utilized to calculate the overall diagnostic value for each diagnostic approach. Results: Sixty-seven high quality articles were finally enrolled in the present meta-analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional US were 0.92 and 0.86, respectively. The corresponding sensitivity and specificity of Doppler US were 0.93 and 0.85, respectively. Additionally, these figures for CEUS were 0.97 and 0.92, respectively. Finally, the AUC values for conventional US, Doppler US and CEUS were 0.95, 0.96 and 0.99, respectively. Conclusion: All of the three US-related imaging modalities have relatively high diagnostic value in distinguishing malignant tumors from benign ones in ovarian tumors.

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.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the detection of gallbladder carcinoma

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Wang ◽  
Yang Fei ◽  
Feng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Gallbladder Carcinoma ◽  
Roc Curve ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography

Aim: To systematically evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for the detection of gallbladder carcinoma. Material and method:  Relevant studies were identified searching PubMed, Embase, Elsevier, the CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) database and the Cochrane Trial Register searches until August 2015. Patient clinical characteristics, sensitivity and specificity were extracted. The summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to examine the accuracy of CEUS. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical utility in the diagnosis of gallbladder carcinoma. Sensitivity analysis was performed after omitting outliers identified in a bivariate boxplot and publication bias was assessed with Egger testing. Results: From 89 citations, 16 were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1673 lesions. We detected heterogeneity between studies and evidence of publication bias. The methodological quality was moderate. The pooled weighted sensitivity with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.90, 0.94), the specificity was 0.91 (95%CI: 0.89, 0.93), the positive likelihood ratio was 10.01 (95%CI: 7.02, 14.29), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.10 (95%CI: 0.07, 0.14), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 123.02 (95%CI: 78.40, 193.03). The area under the ROC curve was 0.9689 (95%CI: 0.9376, 0.9879). Conclusions: CEUS is a reliable, non-invasive, and no-radiation-exposure imaging modality with a high sensitivity and specificity for detection of gallbladder carcinoma. Nonetheless, it should be applied cautiously, and large scale, well-designed trials are necessary to assess its clinical value.

Diagnostic accuracy of serum inflammatory markers in late fracture-related infection

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1542-1550 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. van den Kieboom ◽  
P. Bosch ◽  
J. D. J. Plate ◽  
F. F. A. IJpma ◽  
R. Kuehl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Inflammatory Markers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Erythrocyte Sedimentation ◽  
Serum Inflammatory Markers

Aims To assess the diagnostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP), leucocyte count (LC), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in late fracture-related infection (FRI). Materials and Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched focusing on the diagnostic value of CRP, LC, and ESR in late FRI. Sensitivity and specificity combinations were extracted for each marker. Average estimates were obtained using bivariate mixed effects models. Results A total of 8284 articles were identified but only six were suitable for inclusion. Sensitivity of CRP ranged from 60.0% to 100.0% and specificity from 34.3% to 85.7% in all publications considered. Five articles were pooled for meta-analysis, showing a sensitivity and specificity of 77.0% and 67.9%, respectively. For LC, this was 22.9% to 72.6%, and 73.5% to 85.7%, respectively, in five articles. Four articles were pooled for meta-analysis, resulting in a 51.7% sensitivity and 67.1% specificity. For ESR, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 37.1% to 100.0% and 59.0% to 85.0%, respectively, in five articles. Three articles were pooled in meta-analysis, showing a 45.1% sensitivity and 79.3% specificity. Four articles analyzed the value of combined inflammatory markers, reporting an increased diagnostic accuracy. These results could not be pooled due to heterogeneity. Conclusion The serum inflammatory markers CRP, LC, and ESR are insufficiently accurate to diagnose late FRI, but they may be used as a suggestive sign in its diagnosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document