Computed tomography in evaluating gastroesophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension: A meta-analysis. Issue 7 (July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tseng, Yu-Jen; Zeng, Xiao-qing; Chen, Jie; Li, Na; Xu, Peng-ju; Chen, Shi-yao
• Is Part Of: Digestive and liver disease. Volume 48:Issue 7(2016)
• Page Start: 695
• Page End: 702
• Publication Date: 2016-07
• Subjects: Computed tomography -- Diagnosis -- Gastroesophageal varices -- Meta-analysis; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2016.02.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1590-8658

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Gastroesophageal varices (GOV) is a common complication in patients with portal hypertension. We conducted a meta-analysis in attempt to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) as a noninvasive imaging tool for identifying GOV in reference to esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: A systemic literature search of multiple databases were conducted to identify articles that investigated the diagnostic performance of CT for GOV, while employing EGD as reference standard. A 2 × 2 table was conducted according to the available published data for both esophageal varices (EV) and gastric varices (GV) as individual subgroups. The following indices were calculated: pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under receiver operating characteristics. All statistical analyses were conducted via STATA13.0 and RevMan5.3. Results: A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, 10 articles evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CT for EV (807 subjects) and 7 articles for GV (583 subjects). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying EV were 0.896 (95% CI, 0.841–0.934) and 0.723 (95% CI, 0.644–0.791), respectively, with an AUROC of 0.86. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for identifying GV were 0.955 (95% CI, 0.903–0.980) and 0.658 (95% CI, 0.433–0.829), respectively, with an AUROC of 0.95. A subgroup analysis suggested varying CT technology could serve as a potential source of heterogeneity between included studies. A Deek's funnel plot indicated a low probability for publication bias. Conclusion: Computed tomography could potentially replace EGD as a primary screening tool for diagnosing GOV, however results should be interpreted with caution given its suboptimal specificity.