论文部分内容阅读
AIM To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultra-sonography(EUS) 19 G core biopsies and 22 G core biopsies in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid mass.METHODS Articles were searched in Medline, Pub Med, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random effects models. RESULTS Initial search identified 4460 reference articles for 19 G and 22 G, of these 670 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from 6 studies for 19G(n = 289) and 16 studies for 22G(n = 592) which met the inclusion criteria. EUS 19 G core biopsies had a pooled sensitivity of 91.6%(95%CI: 87.1-95.0) and pooled specificity of 95.9%(95%CI: 88.6-99.2), whereas EUS 22 G had a pooled sensitivity of 83.3%(95%CI: 79.7-86.6) and pooled specificity of 64.3%(95%CI: 54.7-73.1). The positive likelihood ratio of EUS 19 G core biopsies was 9.08(95%CI: 1.12-73.66) and EUS 22 G core biopsies was 1.99(95%CI: 1.09-3.66).The negative likelihood ratio of EUS 19 G core biopsies was 0.12(95%CI: 0.07-0.24) and EUS 22 G core biopsies was 0.25(95%CI: 0.14-0.41). The diagnostic odds ratio was 84.74(95%CI: 18.31-392.26) for 19 G core biopsies and 10.55(95% CI: 3.29-33.87) for 22 G needles. CONCLUSION EUS 19 G core biopsies have an excellent diagnostic value and seem to be better than EUS 22 G biopsies in detecting the correct etiology for a solid mass.
AIM To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultra-sonography (EUS) 19 G core biopsies and 22 G core biopsies in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid mass. METHODS Articles were searched in Medline, Pub Med, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by Both were fixed and random effects models. RESULTS Initial search identified 4460 reference articles for 19 G and 22 G, of these 670 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from 6 studies for 19G (n = 289) and 16 studies for 22G EUS 19 G core biopsies had a pooled sensitivity of 91.6% (95% CI: 87.1-95.0) and pooled specificity of 95.9% (95% CI: 88.6-99.2), while EUS 22 The positive likelihood ratio of EUS 19 G core biopsies was 9.08 (95% CI: 79.7-86.6) and pooled specificity of 64.3% (95% CI: 54.7-73.1) 1.12-73.66) and EUS 22 G core biopsies was 1.99 (95% CI: 1.09-3.66). The negative likelihood ratio of EUS 19 G core biopsies was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.07-0.24) and EUS 22 G core biopsies was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.14-0.41). The diagnostic odds ratio was 84.74 (95% CI: 18.31-392.26) for 19 G core biopsies and 10.55 (95% CI: 3.29 -33.87) for 22 G needles. CONCLUSION EUS 19 G core biopsies have an excellent diagnostic value and seem to be better than EUS 22 G biopsies in detecting the correct etiology for a solid mass.