We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Posttest Probability of Parotid Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2016 January
OBJECTIVES: (1) To analyze the sensitivity and specificity of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in distinguishing benign from malignant parotid disease. (2) To determine the anticipated posttest probability of malignancy and probability of nondiagnostic and indeterminate cytology with parotid FNA.
DATA SOURCES: Independently corroborated computerized searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register were performed. These were supplemented with manual searches and input from content experts.
REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion/exclusion criteria specified diagnosis of parotid mass, intervention with both FNA and surgical excision, and enumeration of both cytologic and surgical histopathologic results. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and posttest probability of malignancy. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I(2) statistic. Meta-analysis was performed via a 2-level mixed logistic regression model. Bayesian nomograms were plotted via pooled likelihood ratios.
RESULTS: The systematic review yielded 70 criterion-meeting studies, 63 of which contained data that allowed for computation of numerical outcomes (n = 5647 patients; level 2a) and consideration of meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed in studies that were prospective, involved consecutive patients, described the FNA technique utilized, and used ultrasound guidance. The I(2) point estimate was >70% for all analyses, except within prospectively obtained and ultrasound-guided results. Among the prospective subgroup, the pooled analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.882 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.509-0.982) and a specificity of 0.995 (95% CI, 0.960-0.999). The probabilities of nondiagnostic and indeterminate cytology were 0.053 (95% CI, 0.030-0.075) and 0.147 (95% CI, 0.106-0.188), respectively.
CONCLUSION: FNA has moderate sensitivity and high specificity in differentiating malignant from benign parotid lesions. Considerable heterogeneity is present among studies.
DATA SOURCES: Independently corroborated computerized searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register were performed. These were supplemented with manual searches and input from content experts.
REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion/exclusion criteria specified diagnosis of parotid mass, intervention with both FNA and surgical excision, and enumeration of both cytologic and surgical histopathologic results. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and posttest probability of malignancy. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I(2) statistic. Meta-analysis was performed via a 2-level mixed logistic regression model. Bayesian nomograms were plotted via pooled likelihood ratios.
RESULTS: The systematic review yielded 70 criterion-meeting studies, 63 of which contained data that allowed for computation of numerical outcomes (n = 5647 patients; level 2a) and consideration of meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed in studies that were prospective, involved consecutive patients, described the FNA technique utilized, and used ultrasound guidance. The I(2) point estimate was >70% for all analyses, except within prospectively obtained and ultrasound-guided results. Among the prospective subgroup, the pooled analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.882 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.509-0.982) and a specificity of 0.995 (95% CI, 0.960-0.999). The probabilities of nondiagnostic and indeterminate cytology were 0.053 (95% CI, 0.030-0.075) and 0.147 (95% CI, 0.106-0.188), respectively.
CONCLUSION: FNA has moderate sensitivity and high specificity in differentiating malignant from benign parotid lesions. Considerable heterogeneity is present among studies.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app