Value of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Sialolithiasis of Submandibular Gland

Yoon, Dae Young; Choi, Moon Hae; Seo, Young Lan; Kim, Do Kyun; Lee, Sang Jo; Bae, Sang Hoon

doi:10.3348/jkrs.1997.37.1.35

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data were extracted and recorded using a standard form 12,13 . The outcomes analyzed included diagnostic accuracy (the diagnostic odds ratio [DOR]), summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves, and the areas under the curves (AUCs) 4–7,9,14–18 . The DOR was calculated as: (true positive [TP]/false positive [FP])/(false negative [FN]/true negative [TN]).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,13 The outcomes analyzed included diagnostic accuracy (the diagnostic odds ratio [DOR]), summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves, and the areas under the curves (AUCs). [4][5][6][7]9,[14][15][16][17][18] The DOR was calculated as: (true positive [TP]/false positive [FP])/(false negative [FN]/true negative [TN]). Diagnostic accuracy was calculated (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) using a random-effects model that considered both within-and inter-study variation.…”

Section: Data Extraction and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Utility of Ultrasonography for Diagnosis of Salivary Gland Sialolithiasis: A Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We hypothesized that ultrasonography for salivary gland stone detection would have a diagnostic accuracy similar to that confirmed by sialendoscopy, sialography, or surgery. Therefore, we evaluated the diagnostic characteristics of ultrasonography in terms of submandibular and parotid stone detection compared to confirmatory methods. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane database to October 31, 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the QADAS‐2 tool. Results Ten studies involving 1393 patients were included in the analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio of ultrasonography was 162.6013 (95% confidence interval [CI] [53.9883; 489.7208] and I2 value 81.0%). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.963. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 0.8992 (95% CI [0.8534; 0.9318]; I2 = 79.9%), 0.9664 (95% CI [0.9290; 0.9844], I2 = 65.6%), 0.8076 (95% CI [0.7256; 0.8694]; I2 = 80.4%), and 0.9853 (95% CI [0.9629; 0.9943]; I2 = 77.4%), respectively. However, high‐level among‐study heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 50%) was evident, attributable to the inclusion of different glands. On subgroup analysis, significant differences in the negative predictive values (parotid gland only [0.9392], submandibular gland only [0.6718], and parotid and submandibular glands [0.8105]) were apparent. We found no significant among‐study difference in the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or diagnostic odds ratio (P > .05). Conclusion Ultrasonography usefully detects submandibular and parotid gland stones. Ultrasonography of the parotid gland was associated with the highest diagnostic accuracy, but further clinical studies are needed. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 132:1785–1791, 2022

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%