诊断优势比
医学
荟萃分析
科克伦图书馆
漏斗图
分级(工程)
接收机工作特性
诊断试验中的似然比
前列腺癌
优势比
出版偏见
梅德林
肿瘤科
内科学
妇科
癌症
土木工程
政治学
法学
工程类
作者
Wei Li,Wenwen Shang,Feng Lu,Yuan Sun,Jun Tian,Yiman Wu,Anding Dong
标识
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2021.792120
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the extraprostatic extension (EPE) grading system for detection of EPE in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods We performed a literature search of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to identify eligible articles published before August 31, 2021, with no language restrictions applied. We included studies using the EPE grading system for the prediction of EPE, with histopathological results as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR−), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated with the bivariate model. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Results A total of 4 studies with 1,294 patients were included in the current systematic review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.87) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.51–0.73), with the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79–0.85). The pooled LR+, LR−, and DOR were 2.20 (95% CI 1.70–2.86), 0.28 (95% CI 0.22–0.36), and 7.77 (95% CI 5.27–11.44), respectively. Quality assessment for included studies was high, and Deeks’s funnel plot indicated that the possibility of publication bias was low ( p = 0.64). Conclusion The EPE grading system demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity, with a good inter-reader agreement. However, this scoring system needs more studies to be validated in clinical practice.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI