| Literature DB >> 32185231 |
Dianmei Liu1, Caiju Du1, Weiguang Shao1, Guifeng Ma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis was conducted to confirm whether carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) could serve as an accurate diagnostic method for coronary artery disease (CAD).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32185231 PMCID: PMC7063191 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9879463
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Selection process of eligible articles. A total of 22 articles were selected in the present meta-analysis.
Basic information of included articles.
| Author | Year | Country | Sample size | Cutoff (mm) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lisowska | 2009 | Poland | 231 | — | — |
| Kamran | 2014 | Iran | 500 | Right: 0.82; left: 0.85 | Right: 0.70; left: 0.70 |
| Nicola | 2014 | Italy | 446 | 0.80 | — |
| Ikeda | 2013 | Japan | 370 | 1 | 0.648 |
| Sait | 2003 | Turkey | 233 | — | — |
| Amer | 2015 | Canada | 217 | 0.82 | 0.611 |
| Maciej | 2015 | Poland | 412 | 0.76 | 0.716 |
| David | 2017 | Ireland | 35 | 0.9 | |
| Mauro | 2007 | Italy | 35 | 1 | 0.885 |
| Ana | 2013 | Portugal | 300 | 0.85 | 0.638 |
| Nobutaka | 2012 | Japan | 501 | 0.9 | 0.791 |
| Geroulakos | 1994 | UK | 75 | 0.85 | — |
| Alberto | 2000 | Italy | 150 | 0.83 | — |
| John | 2000 | Greece | 224 | 0.8 | — |
| Laurent | 2002 | France | 152 | 0.55 | — |
| Yoshihiro | 2004 | Japan | 205 | 1.1 | — |
| Dariusch | 2005 | Germany | 151 | 1 | — |
| Mehmet | 2006 | Turkey | 144 | 0.8 | — |
| Yoshihiro | 2007 | Japan | 103 | 0.88 | 0.92 |
| Anna | 2008 | Poland | 277 | 0.933; 1.075 | 0.817 |
| Iana | 2008 | Bulgaria | 146 | 0.81 | 0.71 |
| Harmony | 2010 | America | 150 | 0.9 | — |
Note: UK: United Kingdom; IMT: intima-media thickness; CAD: coronary artery disease; AUC: area under the curve.
Figure 2QUADAS criteria for quality evaluation of included studies.
Figure 3Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of carotid IMT for CAD. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 and 0.70, respectively.
Figure 4SROC analysis. AUC was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70–0.78).
Subgroup analyses.
| Subgroup | Sensitivity | 95% CI | Specificity | 95% CI | AUC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.8 mm | 0.66 | 0.15–0.95 | 0.66 | 0.51–0.78 | 0.69 | 0.64–0.73 |
| 0.8–1 mm | 0.71 | 0.64–0.77 | 0.67 | 0.58–0.75 | 0.75 | 0.71–0.78 |
| ≥1 mm | 0.66 | 0.48–0.80 | 0.79 | 0.69–0.86 | 0.80 | 0.76–0.83 |
Figure 5Deek's funnel plot for publication bias. No significant publication bias was observed in the present meta-analysis (P = 0.195).