Literature DB >> 30965114

Seven Hormonal Biomarkers for Diagnosing Endometriosis: Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

Ya Gao1, Minghui Shen2, Xueni Ma3, Jipin Li3, Bo Wang4, Jiancheng Wang5, Jinhui Tian6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of different hormonal biomarkers and to find the most effective hormonal biomarker for the diagnosis of endometriosis. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China Biomedical Literature to identify relevant studies from the first day of databases to August 2018. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened for study eligibility and extracted data. Random controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of hormonal markers for endometriosis were included. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND
RESULTS: We included 17 studies that involved 1279 participants and evaluated 7 hormonal biomarkers. The pooled sensitivity and specificity in endometriosis were .79 (.71, .86) and .89 (.82, .94) for aromatase, .30 (.18, .46) and .80 (.65, .90) for human chorionic gonadotropin/luteinizing hormone receptor, .75 (.66, .83) and .47 (.34, .60) for estrogen receptor (ER)-α, .65 (.56, .74) and .68 (.55, .80) for ER-β, .45 (.38-.52) and .92 (.85-.97) for serum prolactin, .69 (.51, .83) and .30 (.16, .49) for estrogen sulfotransferase, and .73 (.60-.84) and .48 (.33-.63) for 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (17βHSD2). Compared with human chorionic gonadotropin/luteinizing hormone receptor, ER-α, ER-β, estrogen sulfotransferase, and 17βHSD2, aromatase had a higher sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. The specificities of aromatase and serum prolactin were comparable, but the sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio of serum prolactin were much lower than that of aromatase.
CONCLUSION: Aromatase may be an excellent diagnostic test for endometriosis. However, because of the moderate quality of the included studies and the limited sample size, this result requires more research to validate. (PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018105126.).
Copyright © 2019 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjusted indirect comparison; Diagnostic test accuracy; Endometriosis; Hormonal biomarkers; Meta-analysis

Year:  2019        PMID: 30965114     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.04.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  3 in total

1.  The value of different imaging methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer: A protocol for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  Mei Zhang; Rongna Lian; Ruinian Zhang; Yulong Hong; Wen Feng; Shifang Feng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 2.  Endometriosis and ovarian cancer risk, an epigenetic connection.

Authors:  Sarah Brunty; Brenda Mitchell; Nadim Bou-Zgheib; Nalini Santanam
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-12

3.  Diagnostic Significance of Selected Serum Inflammatory Markers in Women with Advanced Endometriosis.

Authors:  Izabela Kokot; Agnieszka Piwowar; Marcin Jędryka; Katarzyna Sołkiewicz; Ewa Maria Kratz
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 5.923

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.