Computed tomography
Elasticity Imaging Techniques
/ methods
Esophageal and Gastric Varices
/ diagnosis
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage
/ epidemiology
Humans
Liver
/ diagnostic imaging
Liver Cirrhosis
/ complications
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Observational Studies as Topic
ROC Curve
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Esophageal varices
Liver cirrhosis
Liver stiffness measurement
Magnetic resonance imaging
Meta-analysis
Multidetector computed tomography imaging
Journal
World journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 2219-2840
Titre abrégé: World J Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883448
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 May 2020
14 May 2020
Historique:
received:
13
02
2020
revised:
19
03
2020
accepted:
24
04
2020
entrez:
2
6
2020
pubmed:
2
6
2020
medline:
9
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Computed tomography (CT), liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are non-invasive diagnostic methods for esophageal varices (EV) and for the prediction of high-bleeding-risk EV (HREV) in cirrhotic patients. However, the clinical use of these methods is controversial. To evaluate the accuracy of LSM, CT, and MRI in diagnosing EV and predicting HREV in cirrhotic patients. We performed literature searches in multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases, for articles that evaluated the accuracy of LSM, CT, and MRI as candidates for the diagnosis of EV and prediction of HREV in cirrhotic patients. Summary sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed. The quality of the articles was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Heterogeneity was examined by Overall, 18, 17, and 7 relevant articles on the accuracy of LSM, CT, and MRI in evaluating EV and HREV were retrieved. A significant heterogeneity was observed in all analyses ( Based on the meta-analysis of observational studies, it is suggested that CT imaging, a non-invasive diagnostic method, is the best choice for the diagnosis of EV and prediction of HREV in cirrhotic patients compared with LSM and MRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Computed tomography (CT), liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are non-invasive diagnostic methods for esophageal varices (EV) and for the prediction of high-bleeding-risk EV (HREV) in cirrhotic patients. However, the clinical use of these methods is controversial.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the accuracy of LSM, CT, and MRI in diagnosing EV and predicting HREV in cirrhotic patients.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed literature searches in multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases, for articles that evaluated the accuracy of LSM, CT, and MRI as candidates for the diagnosis of EV and prediction of HREV in cirrhotic patients. Summary sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed. The quality of the articles was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Heterogeneity was examined by
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 18, 17, and 7 relevant articles on the accuracy of LSM, CT, and MRI in evaluating EV and HREV were retrieved. A significant heterogeneity was observed in all analyses (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the meta-analysis of observational studies, it is suggested that CT imaging, a non-invasive diagnostic method, is the best choice for the diagnosis of EV and prediction of HREV in cirrhotic patients compared with LSM and MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32476790
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i18.2247
pmc: PMC7235201
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2247-2267Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors deny any conflict of interest.
Références
Ultraschall Med. 2014 Dec;35(6):528-33
pubmed: 24871695
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010 Jul;34(7):1146-53
pubmed: 20477777
BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb 19;19(1):32
pubmed: 30782139
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Mar;27(3):533-9
pubmed: 21871027
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Aug;40(6):1465-9
pubmed: 25732406
Med Ultrason. 2013 Jun;15(2):111-5
pubmed: 23702500
World J Hepatol. 2016 Aug 28;8(24):1028-37
pubmed: 27648155
J Clin Diagn Res. 2013 Oct;7(10):2253-7
pubmed: 24298490
Radiology. 2007 Mar;242(3):759-68
pubmed: 17229872
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Oct;94(42):e1795
pubmed: 26496312
Hepatol Res. 2014 Oct;44(10):E110-7
pubmed: 24107109
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Sep;58(9):882-93
pubmed: 16085191
J Hepatol. 2016 Dec;65(6):1131-1139
pubmed: 27475617
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Jul;27(7):1213-8
pubmed: 22432969
World J Surg. 1995 May-Jun;19(3):420-2; discussion 423
pubmed: 7638999
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Mar;83(3):497-502
pubmed: 24355657
J Hepatol. 2006 Aug;45(2):230-5
pubmed: 16797100
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Mar;39(3):559-66
pubmed: 24115368
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jun;24(6):1394-402
pubmed: 24626745
Hepatology. 2017 Jan;65(1):310-335
pubmed: 27786365
Hepatology. 2008 May;47(5):1587-94
pubmed: 18393388
J Hepatol. 2019 Jan;70(1):151-171
pubmed: 30266282
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2014 Aug;22(8):600-3
pubmed: 25243961
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010 May-Jun;44(5):e108-15
pubmed: 19904219
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jul;108(7):1101-7
pubmed: 23629600
Hepatology. 2007 Sep;46(3):922-38
pubmed: 17879356
Dig Dis Sci. 2009 Oct;54(10):2247-52
pubmed: 19051016
Digestion. 2016;94(3):138-144
pubmed: 27756066
J Hepatol. 2009 Jan;50(1):59-68
pubmed: 19013661
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Sep;197(3):643-9
pubmed: 21862806
Pol J Radiol. 2019 Feb 12;84:e112-e117
pubmed: 31019603
Radiology. 2018 Dec;289(3):688-697
pubmed: 30179104
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2018 Apr 20;26(4):254-258
pubmed: 29996334
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Sep;24(9):1534-40
pubmed: 19486446
Radiology. 2014 Jul;272(1):143-53
pubmed: 24620910
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan 21;21(3):988-96
pubmed: 25624735
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb;42(1):6-16
pubmed: 28870440
J Viral Hepat. 2013 Dec;20(12):867-74
pubmed: 24304456
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2017 Oct;109(10):704-707
pubmed: 28776387
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2013 Nov;21(11):840-4
pubmed: 24331694
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Sep;56(9):2696-700
pubmed: 21380758
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Feb;37(2):58-65
pubmed: 24365388
Med Ultrason. 2015 Mar;17(1):5-11
pubmed: 25745650
Arab J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep;14(3):99-108
pubmed: 24206737
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jan;188(1):139-44
pubmed: 17179356
Gastroenterology. 2012 Sep;143(3):646-654
pubmed: 22643348
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;3(4):456-463
pubmed: 27657493
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2016 Dec;15(6):612-618
pubmed: 27919850
J Evid Based Med. 2017 Feb;10(1):46-52
pubmed: 27792276
Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2018;18(6):573-580
pubmed: 30073932
J Hepatol. 2015 Sep;63(3):743-52
pubmed: 26047908
J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2011 Mar;20(1):57-64
pubmed: 21451799
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Jun;41(6):1530-7
pubmed: 25817781
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120