OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in differentiating between benign and malignant enlarged lymph nodes using meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, SCI and Cochrane databases were searched for studies (up to September 1, 2014) reporting the diagnostic performance of CEUS in discriminating between benign and malignant lymph nodes. Inclusion criteria were: prospective study; histopathology as the reference standard; and sufficient data to construct 2?2 contingency tables. Methodological quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Patient clinical characteristics, sensitivity and specificity were extracted. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to examine the accuracy of CEUS. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical utility in identification of benign and malignant lymph nodes. Sensitivity analysis was performed after omitting outliers identified in a bivariate boxplot and publication bias was assessed with Egger testing. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC were 0.92 (95%CI, 0.85-0.96), 0.91 (95%CI, 0.82-0.95) and 0.97 (95%CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively. After omitting 3 outlier studies, heterogeneity decreased. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated no disproportionate influences of individual studies. Publication bias was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a promising diagnostic modality in differentiating between benign and malignant lymph nodes and can potentially reduce unnecessary fine-needle aspiration biopsies of benign nodes.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in differentiating between benign and malignant enlarged lymph nodes using meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, SCI and Cochrane databases were searched for studies (up to September 1, 2014) reporting the diagnostic performance of CEUS in discriminating between benign and malignant lymph nodes. Inclusion criteria were: prospective study; histopathology as the reference standard; and sufficient data to construct 2?2 contingency tables. Methodological quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Patient clinical characteristics, sensitivity and specificity were extracted. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to examine the accuracy of CEUS. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical utility in identification of benign and malignant lymph nodes. Sensitivity analysis was performed after omitting outliers identified in a bivariate boxplot and publication bias was assessed with Egger testing. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC were 0.92 (95%CI, 0.85-0.96), 0.91 (95%CI, 0.82-0.95) and 0.97 (95%CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively. After omitting 3 outlier studies, heterogeneity decreased. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated no disproportionate influences of individual studies. Publication bias was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a promising diagnostic modality in differentiating between benign and malignant lymph nodes and can potentially reduce unnecessary fine-needle aspiration biopsies of benign nodes.