OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to determine sensitivity and specificity estimates of helical CT-enteroclysis in the detection of small-bowel tumours. METHODS: A search for relevant articles published from January 1992 to November 2010 was performed. Study design, patient characteristics and 2 × 2 contingency tables were recorded for eligible studies. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I (2) statistic. A bivariate generalised linear random-effects model was used to summarise sensitivity and specificity estimates for small-bowel tumour detection on a per-patient basis. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were compared in different subgroups. RESULTS: Twelve studies (696 patients) were eligible. The mean small-bowel tumour prevalence was 22.6 % (range 7.7-45.8 %). Inter-study heterogeneity was substantial for sensitivity (I (2) = 66.9 %; 95 % CI 28.7-88.5 %) and low for specificity (I (2) = 10.6 %; 95 % CI 0.0-55.0 %). On a per-patient basis, pooled sensitivity was 92.8 % (95 % CI 71.3-98.5 %) and pooled specificity 99.2 % (95 % CI 94.2-99.9 %) for the diagnosis of small-bowel tumour. Subgroup analysis revealed that small-bowel preparation, more than one imaging pass and large volumes (≥2 L) of enteral contrast agent did not improve tumour detection. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirms that helical CT-enteroclysis has high degrees of sensitivity and specificity for small-bowel tumour detection. However, our findings reinforce the need for more standardised individual studies.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to determine sensitivity and specificity estimates of helical CT-enteroclysis in the detection of small-bowel tumours. METHODS: A search for relevant articles published from January 1992 to November 2010 was performed. Study design, patient characteristics and 2 × 2 contingency tables were recorded for eligible studies. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I (2) statistic. A bivariate generalised linear random-effects model was used to summarise sensitivity and specificity estimates for small-bowel tumour detection on a per-patient basis. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were compared in different subgroups. RESULTS: Twelve studies (696 patients) were eligible. The mean small-bowel tumour prevalence was 22.6 % (range 7.7-45.8 %). Inter-study heterogeneity was substantial for sensitivity (I (2) = 66.9 %; 95 % CI 28.7-88.5 %) and low for specificity (I (2) = 10.6 %; 95 % CI 0.0-55.0 %). On a per-patient basis, pooled sensitivity was 92.8 % (95 % CI 71.3-98.5 %) and pooled specificity 99.2 % (95 % CI 94.2-99.9 %) for the diagnosis of small-bowel tumour. Subgroup analysis revealed that small-bowel preparation, more than one imaging pass and large volumes (≥2 L) of enteral contrast agent did not improve tumour detection. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirms that helical CT-enteroclysis has high degrees of sensitivity and specificity for small-bowel tumour detection. However, our findings reinforce the need for more standardised individual studies.
Authors: James R Howe; Kenneth Cardona; Douglas L Fraker; Electron Kebebew; Brian R Untch; Yi-Zarn Wang; Calvin H Law; Eric H Liu; Michelle K Kim; Yusuf Menda; Brian G Morse; Emily K Bergsland; Jonathan R Strosberg; Eric K Nakakura; Rodney F Pommier Journal: Pancreas Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.327