炎症性肠病患者肠道超声波检查的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-20 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0842
Sheza Malik, Sruthi Venugopalan, Bettina Gabrielle Tenorio, Shahab R Khan, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Udayakumar Navaneethan, Babu P Mohan
{"title":"炎症性肠病患者肠道超声波检查的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Sheza Malik, Sruthi Venugopalan, Bettina Gabrielle Tenorio, Shahab R Khan, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Udayakumar Navaneethan, Babu P Mohan","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bowel ultrasonography (BUS) is emerging as a promising noninvasive tool for assessing disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD patients against the gold standard diagnostic method, standard colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Major databases were searched from inception to May 2023 for studies on BUS diagnostic accuracy in IBD. Outcomes of interest were pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), and negative (NPV) predictive values. Endoscopic confirmation served as ground truth. Standard meta-analysis methods with a random-effects model and <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> statistics were applied. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies (1094 patients) were included in the final analysis. The majority (75%) of studies considered bowel wall thickness >3 mm as abnormal. Endoscopic evaluation was performed between days 3 and 180. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-72%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=78%), sensitivity was 88.6% (95%CI 85-91%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=77%), and specificity 86% (95%CI 81-90%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=95%). PPV and NPV were 94% (95%CI 93-96%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=25%) and 74% (95%CI 66-80%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=95%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, small-intestine contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (SICUS) demonstrated high sensitivity (97%, 95%CI 91-99%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=83%), whereas BUS exhibited high specificity (94%, 95%CI 92-96%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=0%) and NPV (76%, 95%CI 68-83%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=80.9%). Meta-regression revealed a significant relation between side-to-side anastomosis and BUS specificity (P=0.02) and NPV (P=0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The high diagnostic accuracy of BUS in detecting bowel wall inflammation suggests utilizing regular BUS as the primary modality, with subsequent consideration of SICUS if clinically warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"37 1","pages":"54-63"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10785028/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of bowel ultrasonography in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sheza Malik, Sruthi Venugopalan, Bettina Gabrielle Tenorio, Shahab R Khan, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Udayakumar Navaneethan, Babu P Mohan\",\"doi\":\"10.20524/aog.2024.0842\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bowel ultrasonography (BUS) is emerging as a promising noninvasive tool for assessing disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD patients against the gold standard diagnostic method, standard colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Major databases were searched from inception to May 2023 for studies on BUS diagnostic accuracy in IBD. Outcomes of interest were pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), and negative (NPV) predictive values. Endoscopic confirmation served as ground truth. Standard meta-analysis methods with a random-effects model and <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> statistics were applied. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies (1094 patients) were included in the final analysis. The majority (75%) of studies considered bowel wall thickness >3 mm as abnormal. Endoscopic evaluation was performed between days 3 and 180. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-72%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=78%), sensitivity was 88.6% (95%CI 85-91%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=77%), and specificity 86% (95%CI 81-90%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=95%). PPV and NPV were 94% (95%CI 93-96%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=25%) and 74% (95%CI 66-80%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=95%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, small-intestine contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (SICUS) demonstrated high sensitivity (97%, 95%CI 91-99%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=83%), whereas BUS exhibited high specificity (94%, 95%CI 92-96%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=0%) and NPV (76%, 95%CI 68-83%; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i>=80.9%). Meta-regression revealed a significant relation between side-to-side anastomosis and BUS specificity (P=0.02) and NPV (P=0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The high diagnostic accuracy of BUS in detecting bowel wall inflammation suggests utilizing regular BUS as the primary modality, with subsequent consideration of SICUS if clinically warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"54-63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10785028/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0842\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肠道超声波检查(BUS)正在成为评估炎症性肠病(IBD)患者疾病活动性的一种很有前途的无创工具。我们对照金标准诊断方法--标准结肠镜检查,评估了 BUS 对 IBD 患者的诊断准确性:方法:检索了从开始到 2023 年 5 月有关 IBD BUS 诊断准确性的主要数据库。感兴趣的结果是汇总的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。内镜确认为基本事实。采用随机效应模型和I2统计的标准荟萃分析方法。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具评估偏倚风险:最终分析纳入了 20 项研究(1094 名患者)。大多数研究(75%)认为肠壁厚度大于 3 毫米为异常。内镜评估在第 3 天和 180 天之间进行。BUS对IBD的汇总诊断准确率为66%(95%置信区间[CI] 58-72%;I2=78%),敏感性为88.6%(95%CI 85-91%;I2=77%),特异性为86%(95%CI 81-90%;I2=95%)。PPV和NPV分别为94%(95%CI 93-96%;I2=25%)和74%(95%CI 66-80%;I2=95%)。在亚组分析中,小肠造影剂增强超声检查(SICUS)显示出较高的灵敏度(97%,95%CI 91-99%;I2=83%),而BUS显示出较高的特异性(94%,95%CI 92-96%;I2=0%)和NPV(76%,95%CI 68-83%;I2=80.9%)。元回归显示,侧对侧吻合与 BUS 特异性(P=0.02)和 NPV(P=0.004)之间存在显著关系:结论:BUS 在检测肠壁炎症方面具有很高的诊断准确性,建议将常规 BUS 作为主要方式,如果临床需要,再考虑 SICUS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Diagnostic accuracy of bowel ultrasonography in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Bowel ultrasonography (BUS) is emerging as a promising noninvasive tool for assessing disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD patients against the gold standard diagnostic method, standard colonoscopy.

Methods: Major databases were searched from inception to May 2023 for studies on BUS diagnostic accuracy in IBD. Outcomes of interest were pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV), and negative (NPV) predictive values. Endoscopic confirmation served as ground truth. Standard meta-analysis methods with a random-effects model and I2 statistics were applied. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

Results: Twenty studies (1094 patients) were included in the final analysis. The majority (75%) of studies considered bowel wall thickness >3 mm as abnormal. Endoscopic evaluation was performed between days 3 and 180. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of BUS in IBD was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-72%; I2=78%), sensitivity was 88.6% (95%CI 85-91%; I2=77%), and specificity 86% (95%CI 81-90%; I2=95%). PPV and NPV were 94% (95%CI 93-96%; I2=25%) and 74% (95%CI 66-80%; I2=95%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, small-intestine contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (SICUS) demonstrated high sensitivity (97%, 95%CI 91-99%; I2=83%), whereas BUS exhibited high specificity (94%, 95%CI 92-96%; I2=0%) and NPV (76%, 95%CI 68-83%; I2=80.9%). Meta-regression revealed a significant relation between side-to-side anastomosis and BUS specificity (P=0.02) and NPV (P=0.004).

Conclusion: The high diagnostic accuracy of BUS in detecting bowel wall inflammation suggests utilizing regular BUS as the primary modality, with subsequent consideration of SICUS if clinically warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy versus peroral endoscopic myotomy in children with esophageal achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Paraduodenal pancreatitis as diagnostic challenge: clinical and morphological features of patients with pancreatic pathology involving the pancreatic groove. Prognosis after curative resection of non-metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective tertiary center study. Real-world outcomes of collaborative surgery for gastrointestinal tumors by endoscopists and surgeons: a single-center retrospective analysis of 131 patients. Technical success and adverse event rates after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using deep sedation with propofol.
×
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