-
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Mar 2024Cesarean scar pregnancy may lead to varying degrees of complications. There are many treatment methods for it, but there are no unified or recognized treatment... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Cesarean scar pregnancy may lead to varying degrees of complications. There are many treatment methods for it, but there are no unified or recognized treatment strategies. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to observe the efficacy and safety of treatment modalities for patients with cesarean scar pregnancy.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to January 31, 2024. In addition, relevant reviews and meta-analyses were manually searched for additional references.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Our study incorporated head-to-head trials involving a minimum of 10 women diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy through ultrasound imaging or magnetic resonance imaging, encompassing a detailed depiction of primary interventions and any supplementary measures. Trials with a Newcastle-Ottawa scale score <4 were excluded because of their low quality.
METHODS
We conducted a random-effects network meta-analysis and review for cesarean scar pregnancy. Group-level data on treatment efficacy and safety, reproductive outcomes, study design, and demographic characteristics were extracted following a predefined protocol. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale for cohort studies and case series. The main outcomes were efficacy (initial treatment success) and safety (complications), of which summary odds ratios and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.
RESULTS
Seventy-three trials (7 randomized controlled trials) assessing a total of 8369 women and 17 treatment modalities were included. Network meta-analyses were rooted in data from 73 trials that reported success rates and 55 trials that reported complications. The findings indicate that laparoscopy, transvaginal resection, hysteroscopic curettage, and high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage demonstrated the highest cure rates, as evidenced by surface under the cumulative ranking curve rankings of 91.2, 88.2, 86.9, and 75.3, respectively. When compared with suction curettage, the odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for efficacy were as follows: 6.76 (1.99-23.01) for laparoscopy, 5.92 (1.47-23.78) for transvaginal resection, 5.00 (1.99-23.78) for hysteroscopic curettage, and 3.27 (1.08-9.89) for high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage. Complications were more likely to occur after receiving uterine artery chemoembolization, suction curettage, methotrexate+hysteroscopic curettage, and systemic methotrexate; hysteroscopic curettage, high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage, and Lap were safer than the other options derived from finite evidence; and the confidence intervals of all the data were wide.
CONCLUSION
Our findings indicate that laparoscopy, transvaginal resection, hysteroscopic curettage, and high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage procedures exhibit superior efficacy with reduced complications. The utilization of methotrexate (both locally guided injection and systemic administration) as a standalone medical treatment is not recommended.
PubMed: 38485053
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101328 -
Resuscitation Plus Dec 2022Upper airway suctioning at birth was considered standard procedure and is still commonly practiced. Negative effects could exceed benefits of suction. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Upper airway suctioning at birth was considered standard procedure and is still commonly practiced. Negative effects could exceed benefits of suction.
QUESTION
In infants born through clear amniotic fluid (P) does suctioning of the mouth and nose (I) vs no suctioning (C) improve outcomes (O).
DATA SOURCES
Information specialist conducted literature search (12th September 2021, re-run 17th June 2022) using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL. RCTs, non-RCTs and observational studies with a defined selection strategy were included. Unpublished studies, reviews, editorials, animal and manikin studies were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently extracted data, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 and ROBINS-I tools. Certainty of evidence was assed using the GRADE framework. Review Manager was used to analyse data and GRADEPro to develop summary of evidence tables. Meta-analyses were performed if ≥2 RCTs were available.
OUTCOMES
Primary: assisted ventilation. Secondary: advanced resuscitation, oxygen supplementation, adverse effects of suctioning, unanticipated NICU admission.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs (n = 1096) and 2 observational studies (n = 418) were identified. Two RCTs (n = 280) with data concerns were excluded post-hoc. Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs, (n = 702) showed no difference in primary outcome. Two RCTs (n = 200) and 2 prospective observational studies (n = 418) found lower oxygen saturations in first 10 minutes of life with suctioning. Two RCTs (n = 200) showed suctioned newborns took longer to achieve target saturations.
LIMITATIONS
Certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Most studies selected healthy newborns limiting generalisability and insufficient data was available for planned subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite low certainty evidence, this review suggests no clinical benefit from suctioning clear amniotic fluid from infants following birth, with some evidence suggesting a resulting desaturation. These finding support current guideline recommendations that this practice is not used as a routine step in birth.
FUNDING
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation provided access to software platforms, an information specialist and teleconferencing.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) (identifier: CRD42021286258).
PubMed: 36157918
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100298 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy is the implantation of an embryo at a site lying outside the uterine cavity or fallopian tubes. Sites include a caesarean scar, the cornua... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy is the implantation of an embryo at a site lying outside the uterine cavity or fallopian tubes. Sites include a caesarean scar, the cornua uteri, the ovary, the cervix, and the abdomen. There has been an increasing trend in the occurrence of these rare conditions, especially caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of surgery, medical treatment, and expectant management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancy in terms of fertility outcomes and complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) search portal and nine other databases to 12 December 2019. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted experts in the field to obtain additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined the effects and safety of surgery, medical treatment, and expectant management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were treatment success and complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs with 303 women, all reporting Caesarean scar pregnancy. Two compared uterine arterial embolization (UAE) or uterine arterial chemoembolization (UACE) plus methotrexate (MTX) versus systemic MTX and subsequent dilation and suction curettage; one compared UACE plus MTX versus ultrasonography-guided local MTX injection; and two compared suction curettage under hysteroscopy versus suction curettage under ultrasonography after UAE/UACE. The quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The main limitations were imprecision (small sample sizes and very wide confidence intervals (CI) for most analyses), multiple comparisons with a small number of trials, and insufficient data available to assess heterogeneity. UAE/UACE versus systemic MTX prior to suction curettage Two studies reported this comparison. One compared UAE with systemic MTX and one compared UACE plus MTX versus systemic MTX, in both cases followed by a suction curettage. We are uncertain whether UAE/UACE improved success rates after initial treatment (UAE: risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 72 women; low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; 1 RCT, 28 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether UAE/UACE reduced rates of complications (UAE: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.75; 1 RCT, 72 women; low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 28 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether UAE/UACE reduced adverse effects (UAE: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.11; 1 RCT, 72 women; low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.24; 1 RCT, 28 women; low-quality evidence), and it was not obvious that the types of events had similar values to participants (e.g. fever versus vomiting). Blood loss was lower in UAE/UACE groups than systemic MTX groups (UAE: mean difference (MD) -378.70 mL, 95% CI -401.43 to -355.97; 1 RCT, 72 women; moderate-quality evidence; UACE: MD -879.00 mL, 95% CI -1135.23 to -622.77; 1 RCT, 28 women; moderate-quality evidence). Data were not available on time to normalize β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG). UACE plus MTX versus ultrasonography-guided local MTX injection We are uncertain whether UACE improved success rates after initial treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.60; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects: the study reported the same number of failed treatments in each arm (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.92; 1 RCT, 45 women). We are uncertain whether UACE shortened the time to normalize β-hCG (MD 1.50 days, 95% CI -3.16 to 6.16; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Data were not available for complications. Suction curettage under hysteroscopy versus under ultrasonography after UAE/UACE. Two studies reported this comparison. One compared suction curettage under hysteroscopy versus under ultrasonography after UAE, and one compared these interventions after UACE. We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy improved success rates after initial treatment (UAE: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 1 RCT, 92 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy reduced rates of complications (UAE: RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 33.91; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 RCT, 92 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy reduced adverse effects (UAE: RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 78.70; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: not estimable; 1 RCT, 92 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy shortened the time to normalize β-hCG (UAE: MD 4.03 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 9.85; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: MD 0.84 days, 95% CI -1.90 to 3.58; 1 RCT, 92 women; low-quality evidence). Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy other than CSP No studies reported on non-tubal ectopic pregnancies in locations other than on a caesarean scar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For Caesarean scar pregnancies (CSP) it is uncertain whether there is a difference in success rates, complications, or adverse events between UAE/UACE and administration of systemic MTX before suction curettage (low-quality evidence). Blood loss was lower if suction curettage is conducted after UAE/UACE than after administration of systemic MTX (moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in treatment success rates, complications, adverse effects or time to normalize β-hCG between suction curettage under hysteroscopy and under ultrasonography (very low-quality evidence). There are no studies of non-tubal ectopic pregnancy other than CSP and RCTs for these types of pregnancy are unlikely.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Bias; Cesarean Section; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Cicatrix; Confidence Intervals; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Methotrexate; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sample Size; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Uterine Artery; Uterine Artery Embolization; Vacuum Curettage
PubMed: 32609376
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011174.pub2 -
BMJ Open Jul 2023To compare the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) against percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) for liver abscess. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) against percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) for liver abscess.
DESIGN
Systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Airiti Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception up to 16 March 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that compared PCD to PNA for liver abscess were considered eligible, without restriction on language.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Primary outcome was treatment success rate. Depending on heterogeneity, either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model was used to derive overall estimates. Review Manager V.5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Trial sequential analysis was performed using the Trial Sequential Analysis software. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.
RESULTS
Ten trials totalling 1287 individuals were included. Pooled analysis revealed that PCD, when compared with PNA, enhanced treatment success rate (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated this robust finding with required information size attained. For large abscesses, subgroup analysis favoured PCD (test of subgroup difference, p<0.001). In comparison to PNA, pooled analysis indicated a significant benefit of PCD on time to achieve clinical improvement or complete clinical relief (mean differences (MD) -2.53 days; 95% CI -3.54 to -1.52) in six studies with 1000 patients; time to achieve a 50% reduction in abscess size (MD -2.49 days; 95% CI -3.59 to -1.38) in five studies with 772 patients; and duration of intravenous antibiotic use (MD -4.04 days, 95% CI -5.99 to -2.10) in four studies with 763 patients. In-hospital mortality and complications were not different.
CONCLUSION
In patients with liver abscess, ultrasound-guided PCD raises the treatment success rate by 136 in 1000 patients, improves clinical outcomes by 3 days and reduces the need for intravenous antibiotics by 4 days.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022316540.
Topics: Humans; Drainage; Suction; Liver Abscess; Biopsy, Needle; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Catheters
PubMed: 37518084
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072736 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Aug 2020It is of paramount importance to reduce the probability of clinical risks to improve the quality of health care services, make the relationship between service providers... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is of paramount importance to reduce the probability of clinical risks to improve the quality of health care services, make the relationship between service providers and patients more effective, enhance patient satisfaction, and decrease the rate of complaints regarding medical errors in hospitals. This study aimed at detecting potential and unacceptable risks occurring in the hospital ICUs.
METHODS
In this systematic review, all studies examining the risk assessment of ICUs in hospitals using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis method were reviewed. Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus, SID, Magiran and Web of Science databases were searched to find relevant articles published from 1980 to 2019.
RESULTS
The most frequent failures detected in the reviewed articles consisted of high risk of infection inwards for medical and nursing operations, high infection rates inwards for medical devices' operation within the unit, and early discharge. Moreover, the processes through which potential high-risk Failures were examined in these studies were injection or prescription process, suction process, the process of inserting or removing endotracheal tubes, the process of transferring patients from the operation room to the unit or vice versa, pressure ulcers, and processes related to the medical devices' operation.
CONCLUSION
There are many possible reasons for failure occurring throughout these processes, and the failure modes occurring in these processes are more probable to cause serious damages to patients, have high repeatability with low probability of failure detection as the failures cannot be discovered by the personnel.
PubMed: 33083318
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v49i8.3865 -
Cardiology 2022Heart failure (HF) is a severe and terminal stage of various heart diseases. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are relatively mature and have contributed to the...
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure (HF) is a severe and terminal stage of various heart diseases. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are relatively mature and have contributed to the treatment of end-stage HF. Ventricular arrhythmia (VA) is a common complication after LVAD implantation, including ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, both of which may cause abnormal circulation.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database, "Ventricular Arrhythmia" OR "VA" OR "Arrhythmia" OR "Ventricular Tachycardia," OR "Ventricular Fibrillation" AND "LVAD" OR "Left Ventricular Assist Device" OR "Heart Assist Device" as either keywords or MeSH terms, the authors screened the titles and abstracts of the articles. Eventually, 12 original research articles were retrieved.
RESULTS
The 0.83 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.89] of patients were male. A whole of 53% [95% CI: 0.25, 0.81] of VA patients had a history of atrial fibrillation and 61% [95% CI: 0.52, 0.69] had a history of VA. 39% [95% CI: 0.29, 0.49] of the participants had no prior history of VA and experienced new VA following CF-LVAD implantation. Following CF-LVAD implantation, 59% [95% CI: 0.51, 0.67] of patients developed early VA (VA ≤30 days). The 30-day mortality rate of patients was 4% [95% CI: 0.01, 0.07]. And overall mortality was 28% [95% CI: 0.15, 0.41]. The reported incidence of VA after LVAD implantation is not identical in different medical centers and ranges from 20% to 60%. The mechanism of VA after LVAD implantation is summarized as primary cardiomyopathy-related, device mechanical stimulation, myocardial scarring, ventricular displacement, electrolyte regulation, and other processes.
CONCLUSIONS
A preoperative VA history is considered a predictor of VA following LVAD implantation in most studies. Multiple mechanisms and factors, such as prevention of "suction events," ablation, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator, should be considered for the prevention and treatment of postoperative VA in patients requiring long-term VAD treatment. This study provides a reference for the clinical application of LAVD and the prevention of postoperative VA after LVAD implantation. Future multicenter prospective studies with uniform patient follow-up are needed to screen for additional potential risk factors and predictors. These studies will help to define the incidence rate of VA after LAVD implantation. As a result, we provide guidance for the selection of preventive intervention.
Topics: Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Female; Heart Failure; Heart-Assist Devices; Humans; Male; Risk Factors; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 35483328
DOI: 10.1159/000524779 -
Respiratory Care Mar 2023Several studies have investigated postextubation complications of the positive-pressure and suctioning techniques; however, these studies yielded inconsistent results.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several studies have investigated postextubation complications of the positive-pressure and suctioning techniques; however, these studies yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, in this systematic review, we aimed to assess and compare the risk of complications between these techniques after extubation.
METHODS
This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021272068). We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies that compared positive-pressure and suctioning extubation techniques in medical literature databases. Our search was conducted from the databases' inception to July 7, 2022. The included studies were assessed for quality by using a risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and 1 non-randomized controlled study were included in this systematic review ( 1,575 subjects), wherein the positive-pressure and suctioning techniques were applied to 762 and 813 subjects, respectively. Three studies were conducted in operating rooms, and 4 studies were conducted in ICUs. Five studies were conducted among adults, and 2 studies were conducted among children or neonates. All the studies except 1 RCT showed that the positive-pressure technique tended to have a lower but not statistically different risk of complications, including desaturation, airway obstruction, pneumonia, aspiration, atelectasis, and re-intubation, than the suctioning technique. Three of the 6 RCTs were determined to have a high risk of bias and the 1 non-randomized controlled study was determined to have a serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The positive-pressure technique tended to have a lower risk of complications than the suctioning technique. Further high-quality studies are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Airway Obstruction; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Suction; Airway Extubation; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36828583
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.10326 -
Endoscopy International Open Aug 2023Despite the widespread use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition, the choice of optimal suction technique remains a subject of debate. Multiple...
Despite the widespread use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition, the choice of optimal suction technique remains a subject of debate. Multiple studies have shown conflicting results with respect to the four suction techniques: Dry suction (DS), no suction (NS), stylet slow-pull (SSP) and wet suction (WS). Thus, the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of above suction techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. A comprehensive literature search from 2010 to March 2022 was done for randomized trials comparing the aspirated sample and diagnostic outcome with various suction techniques. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to analyze the outcomes: sample adequacy, moderate to high cellularity, gross bloodiness and diagnostic accuracy. A total of 16 studies (n=2048 patients) were included in the final NMA. WS was associated with a lower odd of gross bloodiness compared to DS (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.97). There was no significant difference between the various suction methods with respect to sample adequacy, moderate to high cellularity and diagnostic accuracy. On meta-regression, to adjust for the effect of needle type, WS was comparable to DS in terms of bloodiness when adjusted for fine-needle aspiration needle. Surface under the cumulative ranking analysis ranked WS as the best modality for all the outcomes. The present NMA did not show superiority of any specific suction technique for EUS-guided tissue sampling with regard to sample quality or diagnostic accuracy, with low confidence in estimates.
PubMed: 37564335
DOI: 10.1055/a-2085-3674 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Mar 2022The chest tube drainage system (CTDS) of choice for the pleural cavity after pulmonary resection remains controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis...
OBJECTIVE
The chest tube drainage system (CTDS) of choice for the pleural cavity after pulmonary resection remains controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess the length of hospital stay, chest tube placement duration, and prolonged air leak among different types of CTDS.
METHODS
This systemic review and NMA included 21 randomized controlled trials (3399 patients) in PubMed and Embase until 1 June 2021. We performed a frequentist random effect in our NMA, and a P-score was adopted to determine the best treatment. We assessed the clinical efficacy of different CTDSs (digital/suction/non-suction) using the length of hospital stay, chest tube placement duration, and presence of prolonged air leak.
RESULTS
Based on the NMA, digital CTDS was the most beneficial intervention for the length of hospital stay, being 1.4 days less than that of suction CTDS (mean difference (MD): -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.20 to -0.60). Digital CTDS also had significantly reduced chest tube placement duration, being 0.68 days less than that of suction CTDSs (MD: -0.68; 95% CI: -1.32 to -0.04). Neither digital nor non-suction CTDS significantly reduced the risk of prolonged air leak.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital CTDS is associated with better outcomes than suction and non-suction CTDS for patients undergoing pulmonary resections, specifically 0.68 days shorter chest tube duration and 1.4 days shorter hospital stay than suction CTDS.
PubMed: 35455628
DOI: 10.3390/jpm12040512 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Background: To assess the diagnostic utility of middle meatal culture (MMC) in patients with acute and chronic sinusitis; Methods: Six databases were thoroughly reviewed... (Review)
Review
Background: To assess the diagnostic utility of middle meatal culture (MMC) in patients with acute and chronic sinusitis; Methods: Six databases were thoroughly reviewed up to March 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were extracted. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 instrument; Results: Fifteen reports were analyzed. MMC results exhibited a significant correlation (r = 0.7590, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.6855; 0.8172], p < 0.0001) with those of maxillary sinus puncture. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of MMC (reference = maxillary sinus culture) was 8.5475 [3.9238; 18.6199]. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.761. The sensitivity and specificity of MMC were 0.7759 [0.6744; 0.8526] and 0.7514 [0.6110; 0.8534], respectively. We performed subgroup analysis based on age (children vs. adults), duration of disease (acute vs. chronic), and specimen collection method (biopsy, swabs, suction tips). The DORs, specificities, and negative and positive predictive values varied significantly. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for children and individuals with chronic disease, and when samples were collected via suction.; Conclusions: MMC provided fair diagnostic accuracy in patients with acute or chronic sinusitis. Although some institutional differences were evident, the middle meatal and maxillary sinus culture results were similar.
PubMed: 36294389
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206069