Aiye Guo1, Xiuhua Wang2, Lan Gao1, Juan Shi1, Changyi Sun1, Zhen Wan1. 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China; 2. Foreign Affairs Division of Scientific Research, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the diagnostic value of bladder tumour antigen (BTA stat) tests compared with urine cytology test in detecting bladder cancer. METHODS: We searched public databases including PubMed, MEDLINE Springer, Elsevier Science Direct, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar before December 2012. To collect relevant data of BTA stat tests and urine cytology tests in patients with bladder cancer, we studied meta-analyses of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) of BTA stat tests and cytology tests from published studies. We applied the software of Rev. Man 5.1 and Stata 11.0 to the meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 13 separate studies consisting of 3462 patients with bladder cancer were considered in the meta-analysis. We found that the BTA stat test had a higher sensitivity than the urine cytology test (0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 0.69 vs. 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.46), but the specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, the area under the curve (AUC) and Q index of the BTA stat test were lower compared with the urine cytology test. The results of the Egger's linear regression test showed no publication bias (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, the AUC and the Q index of the urine cytology test may be superior to the BTA stat test, but the BTA stat test has greater sensitivity than the urine cytology test.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the diagnostic value of bladder tumour antigen (BTA stat) tests compared with urine cytology test in detecting bladder cancer. METHODS: We searched public databases including PubMed, MEDLINE Springer, Elsevier Science Direct, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar before December 2012. To collect relevant data of BTA stat tests and urine cytology tests in patients with bladder cancer, we studied meta-analyses of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) of BTA stat tests and cytology tests from published studies. We applied the software of Rev. Man 5.1 and Stata 11.0 to the meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 13 separate studies consisting of 3462 patients with bladder cancer were considered in the meta-analysis. We found that the BTA stat test had a higher sensitivity than the urine cytology test (0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 0.69 vs. 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.46), but the specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, the area under the curve (AUC) and Q index of the BTA stat test were lower compared with the urine cytology test. The results of the Egger's linear regression test showed no publication bias (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, the AUC and the Q index of the urine cytology test may be superior to the BTA stat test, but the BTA stat test has greater sensitivity than the urine cytology test.
Authors: H Leyh; M Marberger; P Conort; C Sternberg; V Pansadoro; F Pagano; P Bassi; L Boccon-Gibod; V Ravery; U Treiber; L Ishak Journal: Eur Urol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: M F Sarosdy; M A Hudson; W J Ellis; M S Soloway; R deVere White; J Sheinfeld; M V Jarowenko; P F Schellhammer; E W Schervish; J V Patel; G W Chodak; D L Lamm; R D Johnson; M Henderson; G Adams; B A Blumenstein; K R Thoelke; R D Pfalzgraf; H A Murchison; S L Brunelle Journal: Urology Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: J L Gutiérrez Baños; B Martín García; R Hernández Rodríguez; J A Portillo Martín; M A Correas Gómez; J I del Valle Schaan; A Roca Edreira; A Villanueva Peña; R Gutíerrez García; E De Diego Rodríguez; M A Rado Velázquez Journal: Arch Esp Urol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 0.436
Authors: Maria Frantzi; Agnieszka Latosinska; Leif Flühe; Marie C Hupe; Elena Critselis; Mario W Kramer; Axel S Merseburger; Harald Mischak; Antonia Vlahou Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Haiming Huang; Jialin Du; Bo Jin; Lu Pang; Nan Duan; Chenwei Huang; Jiayin Hou; Wei Yu; Han Hao; Haixia Li Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 6.244