| Literature DB >> 32190130 |
Chao Sun1, Bin Wu1, Jiang Pan1, Lulu Chen1, Wenxian Zhi1, Ruze Tang1, Dongliang Zhao1, Wanliang Guo2, Jian Wang1, Shungen Huang1.
Abstract
AIM: Increasing evidence indicates that hepatic subcapsular flow (HSF) can serve as a noninvasive ultrasonographic marker for the early diagnosis of biliary atresia (BA). However, results regarding its diagnostic accuracy are inconsistent and inconclusive. We conducted this meta-analysis with an aim to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of HSF in predicting BA.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32190130 PMCID: PMC7072104 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5262565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1Flow chart of literature search and study selection. Nine case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis.
Main characteristics of the diagnostic studies included in the meta-analysis.
| Author | Year | Country | Case | Control | Sensitivity | Specificity | TP | FP | FN | TN | Design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang et al. [ | 2013 | China | 20 | 30 | 95.00% | 93.33% | 19 | 2 | 1 | 28 | Respective |
| Ju et al. [ | 2015 | China | 32 | 30 | 93.75% | 90.00% | 30 | 3 | 2 | 27 | Respective |
| Lee et al. [ | 2009 | Korea | 29 | 35 | 100% | 85.71% | 29 | 5 | 0 | 30 | Respective |
| El-Guindi et al. [ | 2013 | Egypt | 27 | 27 | 96.30% | 96.30% | 26 | 1 | 1 | 26 | Prospective |
| El-Guindi et al. [ | 2014 | Egypt | 30 | 30 | 96.67% | 96.67% | 29 | 1 | 1 | 29 | Prospective |
| Lee et al. [ | 2009 | Korea | 29 | 19 | 100% | 100% | 29 | 0 | 0 | 19 | Respective |
| Li [ | 2017 | China | 30 | 30 | 93.33% | 90.00% | 28 | 3 | 2 | 27 | Prospective |
| Kim et al. [ | 2017 | Korea | 106 | 55 | 87.74% | 70.90% | 93 | 16 | 13 | 39 | Respective |
| Duan et al. [ | 2013 | China | 65 | 213 | 73.17% | 92.37% | 30 | 18 | 11 | 218 | Respective |
Abbreviations: TP: true positive; FP: false positive; FN: false negative; TN: true negative.
Risk of bias assessed by QUADAS-2.
| Author | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient selection | Index test | Reference standard | Flow and timing | Patient selection | Index test | Reference standard | |
| Lee et al. [ | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| El-Guindi et al. [ | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Kim et al. [ | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| El-Guindi et al. [ | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Li [ | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Zhang et al. [ | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Duan et al. [ | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Ju et al. [ | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Lee et al. [ | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Figure 2Forest plots of pooled sensitivity and specificity for HSF in the diagnosis of BA.
Figure 3Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for HSF in the diagnosis of BA.
Multivariate metaregression analysis for the associations of HSF with susceptibility to BA. Results of subgroup and metaregression analysis in the diagnosis meta-analysis.
| Sensitivity | 95% CI | Specificity | 95% CI | Regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design | 0.07 | ||||||
| Respective | 0.9 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.92 | |
| Prospective | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.98 | |
| Mean age | 0.04 | ||||||
| <90 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.95 | |
| ≧90 | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.74 | 0.88 | |
| Sample size | 0.16 | ||||||
| >60 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.92 | |
| ≤60 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.98 | |
| Final diagnose | 0.30 | ||||||
| Surgery/biopsy | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.9 | 0.95 | |
| Unclear | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.67 | 0.86 | |
Abbreviation: CI: confidence interval.
Figure 4Influence analysis and outlier detection: (a) goodness of fit, (b) bivariate normality, (c) influence analysis, and (d) outlier detection.
Figure 5Fagan's nomogram in assessment of the test probabilities after HSF assay.
Figure 6Begg's funnel plot of publication bias (P = 0.25).