Indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) is widely used in patients with pleural effusion (PE). This meta‐analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the clinical complication from IPC. We searched four large electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) for potentially relevant studies and assessed the included studies’ quality using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies’ criteria. Extracted data were used to pool rates, and to conduct subgroup and meta–regression analyses. Forty‐one studies involving a cumulative 4983 patients with 5650 IPCs were included in this meta‐analysis. The overall incidence of IPC complications was 20.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.0–26.3). The top four complications were: overall infection incidence 5.7% (95% CI: 0.7–2.4); overall catheter abnormality incidence 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8–6.3); pain incidence 1.2% (95% CI: 0.4–2.4); and overall loculation incidence 0.9% (95% CI: 0.1–2.1). Subgroup and meta‐regression analyses for overall complications and infections by country, PE site, and PE type demonstrated these factors did not contribute significantly to heterogeneity. Further subgroup analyses for infection of benign PE showed that the overall infection incidence (12.6% [95% CI: 8.1–17.8] vs 0.7% [95% CI: 0.0–4.5]) and empyema incidence (9.1% [95% CI: 5.3–13.8] vs 0.0% [95% CI: 0.0–2.3]) of patients with liver‐related PE were significantly higher than that of patients with heart‐related PE. Our meta‐analysis showed reliable pooled incidences of IPC‐related complications, with infection being the most common. These results serve to remind clinicians about the incidence of IPC‐related complications and emphasize the importance of taking corresponding preventive and therapeutic steps.
Objective This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of serum LDH to pleural ADA ratio (cancer ratio, CR)for malignant pleural effusion (MPE) through an original study and meta-analysis. Methods We retrospectively collected data from 145 patients with MPE and 117 cases of benign pleural effusions (BPE). The diagnostic performance of CR and a typical biomarker of MPE, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), were analysed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of accuracy. The overall diagnostic accuracy of CR was summarised by a standard diagnostic meta-analysis. Results Significantly higher CR and pleural CEA values were observed in the MPE patients than in the BPE patients. At a cut-off value of 14.97, CR showed high sensitivity (0.91), low specificity (0.67), and high AUC (0.85). The combination of CEA and CR increased the AUC to 0.98. The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 2,078 patients. The pooled values for sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of CR were 0.96, 0.88, 7.70, 0.05, and 169, respectively. The AUC of the summary ROC of CR was 0.98. Conclusion CR has a high diagnostic accuracy for predicting MPE, especially when used in combination with pleural CEA.
Adenosine deaminase 2 (ADA2) is reported as a novel diagnostic biomarker for tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) in many studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the general diagnostic performance of pleural ADA2 in TPE. After searching for relevant studies that investigated the diagnostic performance of pleural ADA2 in TPE in several databases, we assessed and selected eligible studies to calculate pooled parameters by STATA 16.0 software. A final set of thirteen studies entirely met the inclusion standards and were used to calculate pooled parameters in our meta-analysis. Among them, there were nine English studies and four Chinese studies. The pooled parameters of pleural ADA2 in diagnosing TPE were summarized as follows: sensitivity, 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95); specificity, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92–0.95); positive likelihood ratio, 13.9 (95% CI: 10.6–18.3); negative likelihood ratio, 0.09 (95% CI:0.06–0.16); diagnostic odds ratio, 147 (95% CI: 76–284); and the area under the curve, 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93–0.97). Pleural ADA2 is a reliable indicator with excellent accuracy in TPE diagnosis. However, we need to combine pleural ADA2 with diverse examinations to diagnose TPE in clinical practice.
The usefulness of serum angiotensin-converting enzyme (sACE) for diagnosing sarcoidosis and determining the active status of sarcoidosis has been reported with varying outcomes. On the basis of the majority of published data, we conducted a meta-analysis to calculate the overall predictive accuracy of sACE in sarcoidosis disease and the active status of sarcoidosis. The inclusion of related research listed in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and other literature databases was assessed. SROC curves were generated to characterize the overall test results after data on sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were combined. Publication bias was identified using Deeks’ funnel plot. Thirty-five publications with 8645 subjects met the inclusion criteria. The following are summary estimates of sACE diagnostic performance for sarcoidosis: sensitivity, 60% (95% confidence interval (CI), 52–68%); specificity, 93% (95% CI, 88–96%); PLR, 8.4 (95% CI, 5.3–13.3); NLR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.36–0.52); and DOR, 19 (95% CI, 12–31). The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80–0.87). Summary estimates for predicting the active status of sarcoidosis were as follows: sensitivity, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61–0.87); specificity, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.64–0.90); PLR, 3.9 (95% CI, 2.1–7.3); NLR, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17–0.49); and DOR, 13 (95% CI, 6–31). The AUC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82–0.88). There was no evidence of publication bias. Our meta-analysis suggests that measuring the sACE may assist in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis and predicting the active status of sarcoidosis, but the interpretation of the sACE results should be with caution. Future studies should validate our results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.