Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus conventional ultrasound in guided liver puncture biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Medical ultrasonography Pub Date : 2024-09-16 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI:10.11152/mu-4374
Lidan Yang, Ting Zhang, Lei Wang, Juan Du, Hao Zhang, Wenquan Yi
{"title":"Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus conventional ultrasound in guided liver puncture biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Lidan Yang, Ting Zhang, Lei Wang, Juan Du, Hao Zhang, Wenquan Yi","doi":"10.11152/mu-4374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus conventional ultrasound (US) in guided liver puncture biopsy through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Comparative studies on CEUS and US in liver puncture biopsy were systematically searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The area under the curve (AUC) for CEUS and US in diagnosing liver biopsy was 0.98 (95%CI 0.99-0.97) and 0.95 (95%CI 0.97-0.93), respectively. CEUS demonstrated significantly higher single puncture success rate (38.0% vs 36.4%) [OR=2.67; 95% CI 1.38-5 .17; p=0 .003] and pathological diagnosis rate (95.6% vs 90.5%) [OR =4.35; 95%CI 2.25 -8.39; p<0 .001] compared to the US group. The diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS group was 95.6 % (1964/2054), while that of the US group was 90.5% (1729/1909). The combined analysis indicated significant advantages for CEUS over US [(OR = 2.36). 95 %CI 1.81-3.09, p<0.001].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CEUS is superior to US in the diagnostic performance, single puncture success rate, pathological diagnosis rate and diagnostic accuracy of liver biopsy in patients with liver lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94138,"journal":{"name":"Medical ultrasonography","volume":" ","pages":"301-309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus conventional ultrasound (US) in guided liver puncture biopsy through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Material and methods: Comparative studies on CEUS and US in liver puncture biopsy were systematically searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.

Results: The area under the curve (AUC) for CEUS and US in diagnosing liver biopsy was 0.98 (95%CI 0.99-0.97) and 0.95 (95%CI 0.97-0.93), respectively. CEUS demonstrated significantly higher single puncture success rate (38.0% vs 36.4%) [OR=2.67; 95% CI 1.38-5 .17; p=0 .003] and pathological diagnosis rate (95.6% vs 90.5%) [OR =4.35; 95%CI 2.25 -8.39; p<0 .001] compared to the US group. The diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS group was 95.6 % (1964/2054), while that of the US group was 90.5% (1729/1909). The combined analysis indicated significant advantages for CEUS over US [(OR = 2.36). 95 %CI 1.81-3.09, p<0.001].

Conclusions: CEUS is superior to US in the diagnostic performance, single puncture success rate, pathological diagnosis rate and diagnostic accuracy of liver biopsy in patients with liver lesions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对比增强超声与传统超声在肝穿刺活检中的应用:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
目的:通过系统综述和荟萃分析评估对比增强超声(CEUS)与传统超声(US)在肝穿刺活检中的应用:从PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库中系统检索了肝穿刺活检中CEUS与US的比较研究。两名研究人员独立筛选和提取数据,并使用RevMan 5.3软件进行数据分析:CEUS和US诊断肝活检的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.98(95%CI 0.99-0.97)和0.95(95%CI 0.97-0.93)。CEUS的单次穿刺成功率(38.0% vs 36.4%)[OR=2.67;95%CI 1.38-5 .17;p=0.003]和病理诊断率(95.6% vs 90.5%)[OR=4.35;95%CI 2.25-8.39; p结论:CEUS在肝脏病变患者肝活检的诊断性能、单次穿刺成功率、病理诊断率和诊断准确性方面均优于US。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic accuracy of transcranial ultrasonography for detecting stenosis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatic cancer liver metastasis mimicking focal nodular hyperplasia. A case report. The impact of bowel preparation on MRI scans for confirming rectosigmoid endometriosis detected by transvaginal ultrasonography. Advancements and challenges in Shear-Wave Elastography of tendons: a comprehensive review. An [illustrative] update on pediatric emergency ultrasound: part 3 - cerebral, musculoskeletal and other applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1