Cargando…
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors
In 2019, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis modified the individual predictors of choledocholithiasis proposed in the widely referenced 2010 guideline to improve predictive performance. Nevertheless, the primary li...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Singapore
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8956528/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35072902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12328-021-01575-4 |
_version_ | 1784676586222518272 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Louie Mirzaie, Sarah Dunnsiri, Tavit Chen, Formosa Wilhalme, Holly MacQueen, Ian T. Cryer, Henry Eastoak-Siletz, Anaar Guan, Michelle Cuff, Callie Tabibian, James H. |
author_facet | Wang, Louie Mirzaie, Sarah Dunnsiri, Tavit Chen, Formosa Wilhalme, Holly MacQueen, Ian T. Cryer, Henry Eastoak-Siletz, Anaar Guan, Michelle Cuff, Callie Tabibian, James H. |
author_sort | Wang, Louie |
collection | PubMed |
description | In 2019, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis modified the individual predictors of choledocholithiasis proposed in the widely referenced 2010 guideline to improve predictive performance. Nevertheless, the primary literature, especially for the 2019 iteration, is limited. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the diagnostic performance of the 2010, and where possible the 2019, predictors. PROSPERO protocol CRD42020194226. A comprehensive literature search from 2001 to 2020 was performed to identify studies on the diagnostic performance of any of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE choledocholithiasis predictors. Identified studies underwent keyword screening, abstract review, and full-text review. The primary outcomes included multivariate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for each criterion. Secondary outcomes were reported sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive value. A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Based on reported ORs, of the 2010 guideline “very strong” predictors, ultrasound with stone had the strongest performance. Of the “strong” predictors, CBD > 6 mm demonstrated the strongest performance. “Moderate” predictors had inconsistent and/or weak performance; moreover, all studies reported gallstone pancreatitis as non-predictive of choledocholithiasis. Only one study examined the new predictor (bilirubin > 4 mg/dL and CBD > 6 mm) proposed in the 2019 guideline. Based on this review, aside from CBD stone on ultrasound, there is discordance between the proposed strength of 2010 choledocholithiasis predictors and their published diagnostic performance. The 2019 guideline appears to do away with the weakest 2010 predictors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8956528 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Singapore |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89565282022-04-07 Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors Wang, Louie Mirzaie, Sarah Dunnsiri, Tavit Chen, Formosa Wilhalme, Holly MacQueen, Ian T. Cryer, Henry Eastoak-Siletz, Anaar Guan, Michelle Cuff, Callie Tabibian, James H. Clin J Gastroenterol Clinical Review In 2019, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis modified the individual predictors of choledocholithiasis proposed in the widely referenced 2010 guideline to improve predictive performance. Nevertheless, the primary literature, especially for the 2019 iteration, is limited. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the diagnostic performance of the 2010, and where possible the 2019, predictors. PROSPERO protocol CRD42020194226. A comprehensive literature search from 2001 to 2020 was performed to identify studies on the diagnostic performance of any of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE choledocholithiasis predictors. Identified studies underwent keyword screening, abstract review, and full-text review. The primary outcomes included multivariate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for each criterion. Secondary outcomes were reported sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive value. A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Based on reported ORs, of the 2010 guideline “very strong” predictors, ultrasound with stone had the strongest performance. Of the “strong” predictors, CBD > 6 mm demonstrated the strongest performance. “Moderate” predictors had inconsistent and/or weak performance; moreover, all studies reported gallstone pancreatitis as non-predictive of choledocholithiasis. Only one study examined the new predictor (bilirubin > 4 mg/dL and CBD > 6 mm) proposed in the 2019 guideline. Based on this review, aside from CBD stone on ultrasound, there is discordance between the proposed strength of 2010 choledocholithiasis predictors and their published diagnostic performance. The 2019 guideline appears to do away with the weakest 2010 predictors. Springer Singapore 2022-01-24 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8956528/ /pubmed/35072902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12328-021-01575-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Clinical Review Wang, Louie Mirzaie, Sarah Dunnsiri, Tavit Chen, Formosa Wilhalme, Holly MacQueen, Ian T. Cryer, Henry Eastoak-Siletz, Anaar Guan, Michelle Cuff, Callie Tabibian, James H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors |
title | Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors |
title_full | Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors |
title_fullStr | Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors |
title_short | Systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 ASGE non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 ASGE predictors |
title_sort | systematic review and meta-analysis of the 2010 asge non-invasive predictors of choledocholithiasis and comparison to the 2019 asge predictors |
topic | Clinical Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8956528/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35072902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12328-021-01575-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wanglouie systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT mirzaiesarah systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT dunnsiritavit systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT chenformosa systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT wilhalmeholly systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT macqueeniant systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT cryerhenry systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT eastoaksiletzanaar systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT guanmichelle systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT cuffcallie systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors AT tabibianjamesh systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofthe2010asgenoninvasivepredictorsofcholedocholithiasisandcomparisontothe2019asgepredictors |