BioMed Research International / 2016 / Article / Tab 5 / Review Article
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Table 5 Summary of the studies evaluating CLE in pancreatic disease screening and diagnosis (all “per patient” analysis).
Authors and year Country Mean age (yr) Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) Accuracy (%) Main findings Konda et al. 2011 [15 ] USA 18 patients 57.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nCLE is the pancreas is technically feasible. Konda et al. 2013 [14 ] USA Germany France 66 patients 63.1 59 100 100 50 71 nCLE has a high specificity in the detection of PCN but it may be limited by a low sensitivity. Kahaleh et al. 2015 [116 ] USA France 18 patients 58.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 94 CLE is effective in assisting with diagnosis of indeterminate pancreatic duct strictures prior to surgery. Nakai et al. 2015 [117 ] USA 30 patients 72 87 77 100 100 77 The combination of cystoscopy and nCLE of pancreatic cysts appears to have strong concordance with the clinical diagnosis of PCN. Napoléon et al. 2015 [118 ] France 31 patients 57 69 100 100 82 87 The newly developed nCLE criterion seems to be highly specific for the diagnosis of serous cystadenoma.
stands for the number of patients enrolled in the study; nCLE, needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy; CLE, confocal laser endomicroscopy; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; and PCN, pancreatic cystic neoplasms.