Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36264978›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for splenic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Xiao Pan, Shu Huang, Peiling Gan, Lei Shi, Huifang Xia, Xinyi Zeng, Han Zhang, Muhan Lü, Xian Zhou, Xiaowei Tang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Xiao PanDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Shu HuangDepartment of Gastroenterology, the People's Hospital of Lianshui, Huaian, China.
Peiling GanDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Lei ShiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Huifang XiaDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Xinyi ZengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Han ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Muhan LüDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Xian ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Xiaowei TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6064-0526

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsAt present, it is difficult and risky to diagnose splenic lesions by conventional needle biopsy using computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (US). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is increasingly being used as a new technique to determine the tissue diagnosis of splenic lesions. Therefore, our goal was to determine the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for splenic lesions.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of splenic lesions using Metadisc. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Questionnaire, a quality assessment tool, was used to scrutinize the quality of the studies.

resultsSix eligible studies between January 2000 and June 2022 were identified, and a total number of 62 patients (aged range from 19 to 84) were enrolled. One patient was excluded because of insufficient specimens. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of included studies were 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.93] and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.46-0.95), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 2.38 (95% CI, 1.24-4.57), the pooled negative LR was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.17-0.55), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 8.67 (95% CI, 2.80-26.82), the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.8100 (Standard Error 0.0813).

conclusionEUS-guided tissue acquisition is a safe technique with high sensitivity in the diagnosis of splenic lesions. However, because of the small sample sizes, more studies with more cases are needed to further validate these results.

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsSplenic DiseasesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationEndosonographyHumansSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID36264978
PMCPMC9584539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.