首页> 外文期刊>Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention >Comparison of Pre-Operation Diagnosis of Thyroid Cancer with Fine Needle Aspiration and Core-needle Biopsy: a Meta-analysis
【24h】

Comparison of Pre-Operation Diagnosis of Thyroid Cancer with Fine Needle Aspiration and Core-needle Biopsy: a Meta-analysis

机译:细针吸入和芯针活检的甲状腺癌前术前诊断的比较:META分析

获取原文
       

摘要

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare sensitivities and specificities of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) in the diagnosis of thyroid cancer. Materials and Methods: Articles were screened in Medline, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Google Scholar, and subsequently included and excluded based on the patient/problem-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) principle. Primary outcome was defined in terms of diagnostic values (sensitivity and specificity) of FNA and CNB for thyroid cancer. Secondary outcome was defined as the accuracy of diagnosis. Compiled FNA and CNB results from the final studies selected as appropriate for meta-analysis were compared with cases for which final pathology diagnoses were available. Statistical analyses were performed for FNA and CNB for all of the selected studies together, and for individual studies using the leave-one-out approach. Results: Article selection and screening yielded five studies for meta-analysis, two of which were prospective and the other three retrospective, for a total of 1,264 patients. Pooled diagnostic sensitivities of FNA and CNB methods were 0.68 and 0.83, respectively, with specificities of 0.93 and 0.94. The areas under the summary ROC curves were 0.905 ( ) for FNA and 0.745 ( ) for CNB, with no significant difference between the two. No one study had greater influence than any other on the pooled estimates for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: FNA and CNB do not differ significantly in sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of thyroid cancer.
机译:背景:该荟萃分析的目的是将细针吸入(FNA)和核心针活检(CNB)的敏感性和特异性进行比较在甲状腺癌的诊断中。材料和方法:在Medline,Cochrane图书馆,Embase和Google Scholar中筛选文章,随后根据患者/问题干预 - 比较 - 结果(PICO)原则而被列入和排除。在甲状腺癌的FNA和CNB的诊断值(敏感性和特异性)方面定义了主要结果。二次结果被定义为诊断的准确性。 Compiled FNA and CNB results from the final studies selected as appropriate for meta-analysis were compared with cases for which final pathology diagnoses were available.对所有选定的研究进行FNA和CNB进行统计分析,以及使用休养次方法的个体研究。结果:文章选择和筛选产生了五项研究的荟萃分析,其中两项是预期的,另外三个回顾性,共1,264名患者。 FNA和CNB方法的汇集诊断敏感性分别为0.68和0.83,特异性为0.93和0.94。摘要ROC曲线下的区域为FNA为0.905(),对于CNB,0.745(),两者之间没有显着差异。在汇总估计的诊断敏感性和特异性的汇总估算中,没有任何研究的影响更大。结论:FNA和CNB在诊断甲状腺癌的敏感性和特异性方面没有显着差异。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号