MRCP versus EUS for diagnosis of bile duct obstruction: a systematic review
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2013.03.010
- VernacularTitle:磁共振胰胆管成像与超声内镜诊断胆道梗阻疾病的系统评价
- Author:
Linlin ZHU
;
Yiping WANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Bile duct obstractions;
Diagnosis;
Systematic review
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
2013;(3):154-159
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of MRCP with EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis and malignant obstruction in patients with suspected biliary obstruction.Methods A fully recursive literature search was conducted in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL,MEDLINE or PUBME (1980-2012),EMBASE (1980-2012),OVID Database (1980-2012),CBM (1980-2012),VIP database (1989-2012),Chinese journal of full-text database (CNKI) (1980-2012),and WANFANG database(1980-2012).The prospective diagnostic studies which evaluated or compared the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP and EUS were included combined with manual searches.We also searched the references of all included articles of important meetings and journals.QUA-DAS items were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.SEN,SPE,+ LR,-LR and the areas under SROC were detected,then t-test was used to evaluate whether statistically significant difference existed between EUS and MRCP.Results Thirteen studies including 1200 cases were recruited.The overall pooled sensitivities of MRCP and EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis were 0.870 (95％ CI:0.826-0.906)and 0.935 (95％ CI:0.90-0.96) respectively,whereas their specificities were 0.952 (95％ CI:0.926-0.971) and 0.947 (95％ CI:0.920-0.967),respectively.The overall pooled positive likelihood ratio for MRCP and EUS were 14.055 (95％ CI:6.259-31.561) and 16.653 (95％ CI:6.896-40.212),respectively,with the corresponding negative likelihood ratio of 0.177 (95％ CI:0.108-0.290) and 0.076 (95％ CI:0.049-0.118),respectively.Areas under the ROC curve were 0.9693 and 0.9771,respectively.There were no statistically significant difference for sensitivity (0.84 ± 0.16 vs 0.93 ± 0.07,P =0.108) and specificity (0.93 ±0.10 vs 0.90 ±0.15,P =0.555) between MRCP and EUS.The overall pooled sensitivities of EUS and MRCP for the detection of malignancy were 0.959 (95％ CI:0.908-0.987),and 0.805 (95％ CI:0.724-0.871),respectively,whereas their specificities were 0.975 (95％ CI:0.954-0.988) and 0.927 (95％ CI:0.897-0.951),respectively.The overall pooled positive likelihood ratio for EUS and MRCP were 23.398 (95％ CI:12.987-42.155) and 13.448 (95％ CI:4.961-36.456),respectively,with the corresponding negative likelihood ratio of 0.059 (95％ CI:0.028-0.122) and 0.134(95％ CI:0.046-0.391),respectively.Areas under the ROC curve were 0.9870 and 0.9686,respectively.There were no statistically significant differences for sensitivity (0.95 ± 0.55 vs 0.88 ± 0.14,P =0.22) and specificity (0.96 ±0.03 vs 0.91 ±0.11,P =0.31) between MRCP and EUS.Conclusion MRCP and EUS are both valuable in differential diagnosis of biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis or malignant lesions.
