文章摘要
毛如雪,李维,刘雅芳,匡良洪,顾文菊.经颅多普勒超声与经胸超声心动图对卵圆孔未闭诊断价值比较的Meta分析[J].神经损伤功能重建,2022,17(3):125-130
经颅多普勒超声与经胸超声心动图对卵圆孔未闭诊断价值比较的Meta分析
Transcranial Doppler versus Transthoracic Echocardiography in Diagnosis of Patent ForamenOvale in Patients: A Meta-Analysis
  
DOI:
中文关键词: 对比增强经颅多普勒超声  对比增强经胸超声心动图  卵圆孔未闭  Meta分析
英文关键词: contrast transcranial Doppler  contrast transthoracic echocardiography  patent foramen ovale  Meta-analysis
基金项目:
作者单位
毛如雪,李维,刘雅芳,匡良洪,顾文菊 鄂东医疗集团黄石 市中心医院(湖北 理 工 学 院 附 属 医 院)神经内科 
摘要点击次数: 2430
全文下载次数: 2661
中文摘要:
      目的:使用 Meta 分析的方法,比较对比增强经颅多普勒超声(c-TCD)与对比增强经胸超声心动图 (c-TTE)对卵圆孔未闭(PFO)右向左分流(RLS)的诊断价值。方法:检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、 Cochrane Library CNKI、VIP、WanFang Data及CBM数据库等自建库至2021年7月3日的文献,采用统计学 软件Stata15.1和RevMan5.0进行数据统计分析。结果:共检索出766篇文献,确定纳入38篇文献。Meta分 析结果显示,c-TCD的合并敏感度(0.96,95%CI 0.93~0.98)高于c-TTE(0.91,95%CI 0.82~0.96),有显著性 差异(Z=2.664,P=0.008);c-TCD 的合并特异度(0.93,95%CI 0.86~0.97)低于 c-TTE(0.95,95%CI 0.90~ 0.97),差异无统计学意义(Z=0.481,P=0.630);c-TCD 的合并 DOR(DOR=384,95%CI 156~943)和 c-TTE (DOR=180,95%CI 78~415)之间差异无统计学意义(Z=0.674,P=0.441)。c-TCD 的 sROC AUC 大于 c-TTE,差异无统计学意义(c-TCD的AUC为0.99,95%CI 0.97~0.99;c-TTE的AUC为0.98,95%CI 0.96~ 0.99;Z=0.357,P=0.507)。结论:c-TCD与c-TTE对PFO-RLS 均具有较高的诊断价值。
英文摘要:
      Using Meta-analysis to compare diagnostic value of contrast transcranial Doppler (c-TCD) and contrast transthoracic echocardiography (c-TTE) in right-to-left shunt (RLS) of patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO). Methods: Relevant literature from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM from databases built until July 3, 2021 were retrieved. Statistical software Stata 15.1 and RevMan5.0 were used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 766 articles were retrieved and 38 were included. Meta-analysis results showed the overall sensitivity of c-TCD (0.96, 95%CI 0.93~0.98) was higher than that of c-TTE (0.91, 95%CI 0.82 ~ 0.96), and the difference was statistically significant (Z=2.664, P= 0.008). The overall specificity of c-TCD (0.93, 95%CI 0.86~0.97) was lower than that of c-TTE (0.95, 95%CI 0.90 ~ 0.97), but the difference was not statistically significant (Z=0.481, P=0.630). The diagnostic odds ratio of c-TCD (DOR=384, 95%CI 156~943) and c-TTE (DOR=180, 95%CI 78~415) showed no significant statistical difference (Z=0.674, P=0.441). The area under the sROC curve (AUC) of c-TCD was higher than that of c-TTE but showed no statistical difference (AUC=0.99, 95%CI 0.97~0.99 for c-TCD v.s. AUC=0.98, 95%CI 0.96~ 0.99 for c-TTE; Z=0.357, P=0.507). Conclusion: For the diagnosis of PFO-RLS, both c-TCD and c-TTE have high diagnostic value.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭