A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Is single-operator peroral cholangioscopy a useful tool for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesion? A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Differentiating between malignant and benign biliary lesions is critical in clinical practice but is difficult.

Objective: To systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of single-operator peroral cholangioscopy on indeterminate biliary lesions.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients: Patients with indeterminate biliary lesions or equivocal ERCP findings.

Main Outcome Measurements: The diagnostic performance of single-operator peroral cholangioscopy on indeterminate biliary lesions. The area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was used as the main indicator for the overall diagnostic performance of single-operator peroral cholangioscopy visual impression (VI) and SpyBite biopsy (SB). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were also synthesized.

Results: A total of 8 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 335 patients who had data on VI and 337 who had data on SB. The area under the curve values on the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of single-operator peroral cholangioscopy VI and SB were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.96) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) respectively. The combined sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 90% (95% CI, 73%-97%), 87% (95% CI, 76%-94%), 7.1 (95% CI, 3.8-13.3), 0.12 (95% CI, 0.04-0.33) for VI and 69% (95% CI, 57%-79%), 98% (95% CI, 92%-99%), 30.1 (95% CI, 8.5-106.9), and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.23-0.44) for SB, respectively.

Limitations: Small number of included studies; comparison with ERCP could not be made.

Conclusion: Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy is a good tool for differentiating malignant and benign biliary lesions. VI is useful for detecting malignant lesion, whereas SB is better at confirming a malignant diagnosis, but VI is not perfect in excluding biliary cancer, nor is SB, and their negative results should be interpreted with caution.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

single-operator peroral
24
peroral cholangioscopy
24
likelihood ratio
16
indeterminate biliary
12
biliary lesions
12
diagnostic performance
12
performance single-operator
12
95%
10
systematic review
8
differentiating malignant
8

Similar Publications