Cargando…

Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Visual inspection via laparoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Laparoscopy is an invasive procedure; therefore, it would be beneficial to patients if accurate non-invasive modalities were available for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endome...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Xiao, He, Tao, Shen, Wen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: D.A. Spandidos 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7444323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32855690
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9043
_version_ 1783573784434835456
author Zhang, Xiao
He, Tao
Shen, Wen
author_facet Zhang, Xiao
He, Tao
Shen, Wen
author_sort Zhang, Xiao
collection PubMed
description Visual inspection via laparoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Laparoscopy is an invasive procedure; therefore, it would be beneficial to patients if accurate non-invasive modalities were available for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. The purpose of the current review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and MRI as alternative methods for diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. A systematic search of the Medline, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane library databases, between their inception and September 2019, was performed. The quality of trials was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to obtain the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio for each of the three imaging modalities and clinical examination. A total of 30 studies with 4,565 participants were included in the review. Physical examination had a pooled sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 69%, with an average diagnostic accuracy [area under the curve (AUC) =0.76]. TVUS had a pooled sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 94%, with higher diagnostic accuracy than physical examination (AUC =0.92). TRUS had a pooled sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 80% with an AUC of 0.93. MRI had a pooled sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 87% with higher diagnostic accuracy than physical examination (AUC =0.91). All the imaging modalities had good clinical utility, as indicated by the Fagan plot. The present analysis demonstrates that the imaging modalities TVUS, TRUS and MRI may be highly useful alternatives to laparoscopy for diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis and that these techniques have a high sensitivity and specificity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7444323
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher D.A. Spandidos
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74443232020-08-26 Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies Zhang, Xiao He, Tao Shen, Wen Exp Ther Med Articles Visual inspection via laparoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Laparoscopy is an invasive procedure; therefore, it would be beneficial to patients if accurate non-invasive modalities were available for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. The purpose of the current review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and MRI as alternative methods for diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. A systematic search of the Medline, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane library databases, between their inception and September 2019, was performed. The quality of trials was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to obtain the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio for each of the three imaging modalities and clinical examination. A total of 30 studies with 4,565 participants were included in the review. Physical examination had a pooled sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 69%, with an average diagnostic accuracy [area under the curve (AUC) =0.76]. TVUS had a pooled sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 94%, with higher diagnostic accuracy than physical examination (AUC =0.92). TRUS had a pooled sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 80% with an AUC of 0.93. MRI had a pooled sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 87% with higher diagnostic accuracy than physical examination (AUC =0.91). All the imaging modalities had good clinical utility, as indicated by the Fagan plot. The present analysis demonstrates that the imaging modalities TVUS, TRUS and MRI may be highly useful alternatives to laparoscopy for diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis and that these techniques have a high sensitivity and specificity. D.A. Spandidos 2020-10 2020-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7444323/ /pubmed/32855690 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9043 Text en Copyright: © Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Articles
Zhang, Xiao
He, Tao
Shen, Wen
Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
title Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
title_full Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
title_fullStr Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
title_short Comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
title_sort comparison of physical examination, ultrasound techniques and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7444323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32855690
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9043
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangxiao comparisonofphysicalexaminationultrasoundtechniquesandmagneticresonanceimagingforthediagnosisofdeepinfiltratingendometriosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracystudies
AT hetao comparisonofphysicalexaminationultrasoundtechniquesandmagneticresonanceimagingforthediagnosisofdeepinfiltratingendometriosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracystudies
AT shenwen comparisonofphysicalexaminationultrasoundtechniquesandmagneticresonanceimagingforthediagnosisofdeepinfiltratingendometriosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracystudies