A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Meta-analysis of the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the detection of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair. | LitMetric

Meta-analysis of the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the detection of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair.

J Vasc Surg

Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Published: January 2019

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for detection of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Methods: We searched electronic bibliographic databases for original articles comparing concurrent CEUS and computed tomography angiography for detection of endoleak after EVAR. We assessed the methodologic quality of the studies with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We constructed 2 × 2 contingency tables for all selected studies including true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results for all endoleaks and for type I and type III endoleaks. We used a mixed-effects logistic regression model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. We developed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves and calculated the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: We identified 26 studies reporting a total of 2638 paired scans in 2217 patients. The major risk of bias of the selected studies pertained to blinding for the index test and the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for all endoleaks were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96), respectively. The AUC was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity for type I and type III endoleaks was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.8-1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00), respectively. The AUC was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00).

Conclusions: CEUS has a high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR. CEUS is a useful tool in EVAR surveillance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.044DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sensitivity specificity
16
detection endoleak
12
accuracy contrast-enhanced
8
contrast-enhanced ultrasound
8
endoleak endovascular
8
endovascular aneurysm
8
aneurysm repair
8
diagnostic accuracy
8
selected studies
8
type type
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!