-
Journal of Personalized Medicine Aug 2023To systematically review and meta-analyze the predictive value of the Fournier gangrene severity index (FGSI), the simplified FGSI (SFGSI), and the Uludag FGSI (UFGSI)... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze the predictive value of the Fournier gangrene severity index (FGSI), the simplified FGSI (SFGSI), and the Uludag FGSI (UFGSI) on mortality in patients affected by Fournier's Gangrene (FG).
METHODS
A search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from January 2000 to May 2023, to identify original cohorts comparing data between surviving and non-surviving FG patients. The statistical analysis consisted of two parts. First, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI at admission were extrapolated from each study, and the pooled mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was obtained using the Der Simonian-Laird random-effect model. Second, to evaluate the accuracy of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFSGI in predicting mortality, true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN) values were extracted where possible and reported in 2 × 2 contingency tables. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were pooled, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed.
RESULTS
Overall, forty studies comprising 2257 patients were included. The pooled analysis revealed that the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI values at admission were higher in non-survivors than survivors (MD: 5.53 (95% CI: 4.68-6.37); MD: 2.41 (95% CI: 1.06-3.77); and MD: 5.47 (95% CI: 3.68-7.26), respectively). Moreover, the AUC values of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87), and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The higher scores of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI on admission were associated with mortality. Moreover, when comparing accuracy rates, the UFGSI exhibited the highest AUC value.
PubMed: 37763051
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13091283 -
Biomedicines Nov 2023To investigate the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with new-onset diabetes (NOD). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with new-onset diabetes (NOD).
METHODS
The PRISMA statement standards were followed to conduct a systematic review. All studies investigating the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with NOD were included. Two-by-two tables, coupled forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic plots were constructed using the number of true positives, false negatives, true negatives and false positives. Diagnostic random effects models were used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity points.
RESULTS
A total of 26,752 individuals from four studies were included. The median follow-up was 3 years and the pooled risk of pancreatic cancer was 0.8% (95% CI 0.6-1.0%). END-PAC score ≥ 3, which classifies the patients as high risk, was associated with better predictive performance (sensitivity: 55.8% (43.9-67%); specificity: 82.0% (76.4-86.5%)) in comparison with END-PAC score 1-2 (sensitivity: 22.2% (16.6-29.2%); specificity: 69.9% (67.3-72.4%)) and END-PAC score < 1 (sensitivity: 18.0% (12.8-24.6%); specificity: 50.9% (48.6-53.2%)) which classify the patients as intermediate and low risk, respectively. The evidence quality was judged to be moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
END-PAC is a promising model for predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with NOD. The score ≥3 should be considered as optimum cut-off value. More studies are needed to assess whether it could improve early pancreatic cancer detection rate, pancreatic cancer re-section rate, and pancreatic cancer treatment outcomes.
PubMed: 38002040
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11113040 -
BMC Cancer Apr 2024As comprehensive surgical management for gastric cancer becomes increasingly specialized and standardized, the precise differentiation between ≤T1 and ≥T2 gastric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As comprehensive surgical management for gastric cancer becomes increasingly specialized and standardized, the precise differentiation between ≤T1 and ≥T2 gastric cancer before endoscopic intervention holds paramount clinical significance.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced gastric ultrasonography in differentiating ≤T1 and ≥T2 gastric cancer.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Medline were searched to collect studies published from January 1, 2000 to March 16, 2023 on the efficacy of either double contrast-enhanced gastric ultrasonography (D-CEGUS) or oral contrast-enhanced gastric ultrasonography (O-CEGUS) in determining T-stage in gastric cancer. The articles were selected according to specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the quality of the included literature was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 scale. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12 software with data from the 2 × 2 crosslinked tables in the included literature.
RESULTS
In total, 11 papers with 1124 patients were included in the O-CEGUS analysis, which revealed a combined sensitivity of 0.822 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.753-0.875), combined specificity of 0.964 (95% CI = 0.925-0.983), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89-0.94). In addition, five studies involving 536 patients were included in the D-CEGUS analysis, which gave a combined sensitivity of 0.733 (95% CI = 0.550-0.860), combined specificity of 0.982 (95% CI = 0.936-0.995), and AUC of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.91-0.95). According to the I and P values of the forest plot, there was obvious heterogeneity in the combined specificities of the included papers. Therefore, the two studies with the lowest specificities were excluded from the O-CEGUS and D-CEGUS analyses, which eliminated the heterogeneity among the remaining literature. Consequently, the combined sensitivity and specificity of the remaining studies were 0.794 (95% CI = 0.710-0.859) and 0.976 (95% CI = 0.962-0.985), respectively, for the O-CEDUS studies and 0.765 (95% CI = 0.543-0.899) and 0.986 (95% CI = 0.967-0.994), respectively, for the D-CEGUS studies. The AUCs were 0.98 and 0.99 for O-CEGUS and D-CEGUS studies, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Both O-CEGUS and D-CEGUS can differentiate ≤T1 gastric cancer from ≥T2 gastric cancer, thus assisting the formulation of clinical treatment strategies for patients with very early gastric cancer. Given its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, O-CEGUS is often favored as a staging method for gastric cancer prior to endoscopic intervention.
Topics: Humans; Stomach Neoplasms; Ultrasonography; Sensitivity and Specificity; ROC Curve
PubMed: 38580944
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12210-z