SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Is three-dimensional ultrasonography a valuable diagnostic tool for patients with ovarian cancer? Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This paper was to assess the diagnostic performance and clinical value of three-dimensional ultrasonography (3DUS), three-dimensional ultrasonography power Doppler (3DPD), and 3DUS combined with 3DPD in ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023405765). PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to 25 January 2022, and reference lists of potentially eligible studies were also manually searched. Patient and study characteristics were extracted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were addressed through discussion. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR, respectively), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled separately. Results: We retrieved 2,566 studies, of which 18 were finally enrolled, with 2,548 cases. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC for 3DUS were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96), 13.1 (95% CI: 7.3-23.4), 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16), and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC for 3DPD were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.80-0.95), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.71-0.92), 5.8 (95% CI: 3.0-11.2), 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06-0.24), and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC for 3DUS combined with 3DPD were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.73-1.00), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99), 21.9 (95% CI: 6.1-78.9), 0.01 (95% CI: 0.00-0.37), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00), respectively. Conclusions: 3DUS, 3DPD, and 3DUS combined with 3DPD are promising diagnostic tools for OC, alongside elevated sensitivity and specificity. However, the combination of 3DUS and 3DPD techniques has higher diagnostic efficiency. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD 42023405765.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.