Clinical Analysis of Parotid Tumor

Ishida, Ryoji; Yamada, Hiroyuki; Nishii, Sin-ichiro

doi:10.5631/jibirin.96.1095

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The text of the eligible studies was screened to obtain 13 studies that met our inclusion criteria ❚Table 1❚. [2][3][4][5][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] These studies included a total of 1,880 cases on the discrimination of benign vs malignant lesions.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Frozen Section for Parotid Gland Lesions

Schmidt

Hunt

Hall

et al. 2011

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a systematic literature review using MEDLINE and Embase to identify articles on diagnostic accuracy of frozen section (FS) for salivary gland lesions published between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2010. We also reviewed the reference lists of all identified articles and conducted a forward search using Scopus to identify all articles citing the reference set. Meta-analysis was used to produce a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve from which summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained. Study quality was assessed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (QUADAS) survey. The accuracy of FS was compared with that of fine-needle aspiration cytology using results from an earlier review. A set of 13 studies (1,880 cases) with extractable data met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for the area under the SROC curve, FS sensitivity, and FS specificity are 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.00), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00), respectively. FS has acceptable accuracy (90% sensitivity, 99% specificity) and is consistently accurate across study centers.

show abstract

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We identified 3 potential sources of bias: classification bias (item 3, Table 3), review bias (item 11, 5 Tew et al 19 3 Longuet et al 18 Iwai et al 17 16 Hwang and Brett 15 Carvalho et al 14 Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice?…”

Section: Sources Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%