Diagnostic accuracy of sliding sign for detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement in women with suspected endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
bowel
endometriosis
pouch of Douglas
sliding sign
sonography
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
revised:
27
02
2022
received:
29
12
2021
accepted:
02
03
2022
pubmed:
16
3
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
15
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the sliding sign on transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) in detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement in patients with suspected endometriosis, using laparoscopy as the reference standard. A search for studies evaluating the role of the sliding sign in the assessment of pouch of Douglas obliteration and/or bowel involvement using laparoscopy as the reference standard published from January 2000 to October 2021 was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and SCOPUS databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Analyses were performed using MIDAS and METANDI commands in STATA. A total of 334 citations were identified. Eight studies were included in the analysis, resulting in 938 and 963 patients available for analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the sliding sign for pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement, respectively. The mean prevalence of pouch of Douglas obliteration was 37% and the mean prevalence of bowel involvement was 23%. The pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of the sliding sign on TVS for detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration were 88% (95% CI, 81-93%), 94% (95% CI, 91-96%), 15.3 (95% CI, 10.2-22.9), 0.12 (95% CI, 0.07-0.21) and 123 (95% CI, 62-244), respectively. The heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and low for specificity for detecting pouch of Douglas obliteration. The pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of the sliding sign on TVS for detecting bowel involvement were 81% (95% CI, 64-91%), 95% (95% CI, 91-97%), 16.0 (95% CI, 9.0-28.6), 0.20 (95% CI, 0.10-0.40) and 81 (95% CI, 34-191), respectively. The heterogeneity for the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for bowel involvement was high. The sliding sign on TVS has good diagnostic performance for predicting pouch of Douglas obliteration and bowel involvement in women with suspected endometriosis. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35289968
doi: 10.1002/uog.24900
pmc: PMC9825886
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
477-486Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):692-5
pubmed: 23400893
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Jul - Aug;27(5):1141-1147
pubmed: 32007640
Fertil Steril. 2015 Aug;104(2):366-83.e2
pubmed: 26051099
Hum Reprod. 2009 Mar;24(3):602-7
pubmed: 19095669
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):390-407.e3
pubmed: 31676397
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 May-Jun;18(3):333-7
pubmed: 21420910
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Jan;40(1):83-89
pubmed: 31328629
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):685-91
pubmed: 23001892
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;48(1):113-20
pubmed: 26214843
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Nov;58(5):669-676
pubmed: 34358386
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Feb;41(2):210-5
pubmed: 22745055
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):265-266
pubmed: 31493569
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2020 Jan-Mar;13(1):26-30
pubmed: 32577065
J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Dec;39(12):2295-2303
pubmed: 32412170
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;48(6):786-795
pubmed: 26764187
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Mar;28(3):453-466
pubmed: 32841755
J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Feb;33(2):315-21
pubmed: 24449735
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Oct;54(5):462-8
pubmed: 25287563
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;47(3):386-95
pubmed: 26411461
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Feb 12;2020(1):hoaa002
pubmed: 32064361
Hum Reprod. 2007 Dec;22(12):3092-7
pubmed: 17947378
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;37(4):480-7
pubmed: 21433168
Hum Reprod. 2003 Aug;18(8):1686-92
pubmed: 12871883
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Nov;97(11):1287-1292
pubmed: 30007066
Radiol Med. 2006 Aug;111(5):687-701
pubmed: 16791463
Hum Reprod. 2014 Jun;29(6):1199-204
pubmed: 24777849
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;36(2):241-8
pubmed: 20503231
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Nov;46(5):534-45
pubmed: 26250349
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Jul - Aug;26(5):928-934
pubmed: 30267896
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 26;2:CD009591
pubmed: 26919512
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Jan;28(1):57-62
pubmed: 32289555
Evid Based Med. 2008 Dec;13(6):162-3
pubmed: 19043023
J Clin Ultrasound. 2013 Feb;41(2):69-75
pubmed: 23233390
BMC Womens Health. 2013 Oct 29;13:43
pubmed: 24165087
Hum Reprod. 2013 May;28(5):1237-46
pubmed: 23482338
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;48(3):318-32
pubmed: 27349699
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;44(6):710-8
pubmed: 24862965
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov - Dec;27(7):1581-1587.e1
pubmed: 32126302
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Mar 06;2020(2):hoaa001
pubmed: 32161818
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;47(3):281-9
pubmed: 26213903