文章：

甲状腺细针穿刺液基细胞学与传统涂片方法的比较：一项系统综述与荟萃分析

Comparison of Liquid-Based Preparations with Conventional Smears in Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspirates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

原文发布日期：11 February 2024

DOI: 10.3390/cancers16040751

类型: Article

开放获取: 是

英文摘要：

Background: To compare conventional smears (CSs) and liquid-based preparations (LBPs) for diagnosing thyroid malignant or suspicious lesions. Methods: Studies in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database published up to December 2023. We reviewed 17 studies, including 15,861 samples. Results: The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for CS was 23.6674. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.879, with sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 0.8266, 0.8668, 0.8969, and 0.7841, respectively. The rate of inadequate specimens was 0.1280. For LBP, the DOR was 25.3587, with an AUC of 0.865. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 0.8190, 0.8833, 0.8515, and 0.8562. The rate of inadequate specimens was 0.1729. For CS plus LBP, the AUC was 0.813, with a lower DOR of 9.4557 compared to individual methods. Diagnostic accuracy did not significantly differ among CS, LBP, and CS plus LBP. Subgroup analysis was used to compare ThinPrep and SurePath. The DORs were 29.1494 and 19.7734. SurePath had a significantly higher AUC. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy or proportion of inadequate smears between CS and LBP. SurePath demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than ThinPrep. Recommendations for fine-needle aspiration cytology should consider cost, feasibility, and accuracy.

摘要翻译： 

背景：比较传统涂片（CS）与液基制片（LBP）在诊断甲状腺恶性或可疑病变中的表现。方法：检索截至2023年12月发表于PubMed、SCOPUS、Embase、Web of Science及Cochrane数据库的相关研究。共纳入17项研究，包含15,861例样本。结果：传统涂片的诊断比值比（DOR）为23.6674，综合受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUC）为0.879，其敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值分别为0.8266、0.8668、0.8969和0.7841，标本不满意率为0.1280。液基制片的DOR为25.3587，AUC为0.865，敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值分别为0.8190、0.8833、0.8515和0.8562，标本不满意率为0.1729。传统涂片联合液基制片（CS+LBP）的AUC为0.813，其DOR（9.4557）低于单独检测方法。三种方法（CS、LBP及CS+LBP）的诊断准确性无显著差异。亚组分析比较了ThinPrep与SurePath两种液基技术，其DOR分别为29.1494和19.7734，SurePath的AUC显著更高。结论：传统涂片与液基制片在诊断准确性及涂片不满意率方面无显著差异；SurePath较ThinPrep具有更高的诊断准确性。细针穿刺细胞学检查方法的选择需综合考虑成本、可行性与准确性。

原文链接：

Comparison of Liquid-Based Preparations with Conventional Smears in Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspirates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis