4.1 Review

Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of blue laser imaging with narrow band imaging for gastric cancer and precancerous lesions: a meta-analysis

期刊

REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ENFERMEDADES DIGESTIVAS
卷 112, 期 8, 页码 649-658

出版社

ARAN EDICIONES, S A
DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.6591/2019

关键词

Stomach cancer; Blue laser imaging; Narrow band imaging; Meta-analysis; Precancerous lesions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: novel endoscopic techniques including narrowband imaging (NBI) and blue laser imaging (BLI) have led to the improved detection of early stage gastric cancer and precancerous lesions. However, these techniques are not generally thought to be equivalent at present and BLI is generally considered as superior to NBI. Therefore, this comprehensive meta-analysis aimed to definitively compare the diagnostic efficacy of NBI and BLI for the diagnosis of gastric cancer and precancerous lesions. Methods: relevant articles were identified via searches of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from their inception until October 2019. In total, 28 relevant studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. RevMan5.3 was used to assess the relative diagnostic efficacy of these two imaging modalities in these studies. The threshold was assessed using Meta-DiSc 1.4 and STATA 14.0 for bivariate regression modeling of pooled studies. Results: the pooled sensitivity of BLI for gastric cancer was 0.89 (0.80, 0.95) and the specificity was 0.92 (0.76, 0.98). The pooled sensitivity of NBI for gastric cancer was 0.83 (0.75, 0.89) and the specificity was 0.95 (0.91, 0.97). The pooled sensitivity of BLI for precancerous lesions was 0.81 (0.71, 0.87) and the specificity was 0.90 (0.80, 0.96). The pooled sensitivity of NBI for precancerous lesions was 0.80 (0.75, 0.85) and the specificity was 0.88 (0.77, 0.94). Conclusions: this study showed that both BLI and NBI have a very high diagnostic efficacy for the detection of gastric cancer and precancerous lesions, the sensitivity and specificity of these two approaches were similar.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据