Review Article
Minimally Invasive Methods for Staging in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 4
Summary of finding using GRADE approach. (a) shows EBUS + EUS-B-FNA only; (b) shows pooled data from all included primary studies.
| (a) EBUS + EUS pooled sensitivity: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.89) | pooled specificity: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.00) |
| | Test result | Number of results per 1000 patients tested (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | | Prevalence 40.2% |
| True positives
(patients with staging) | 350 (334 to 358) | 609 (12) | ⨁⨁◯◯
LOW | False negatives
(patients incorrectly classified as not having staging) | 52 (68 to 44) | True negatives
(patients without staging) | 592 (592 to 598) | 906 (12) | ⨁⨁⨁◯
MODERATE | False positives
(patients incorrectly classified as having staging) | 6 (6 to 0) |
|
|
| (b) EBUS-EUS-B-FNA pooled sensitivity: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.91) | pooled specificity: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.00) |
| | Test result | Number of results per 1000 patients tested (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | | Prevalence 40.8% |
| True positives
(patients with staging) | 359 (339 to 371) | 297 (6) | ⨁⨁⨁◯
LOW | False negatives
(patients incorrectly classified as not having staging) | 49 (69 to 37) | True negatives
(patients without staging) | 592 (586 to 592) | 431 (6) | ⨁⨁⨁◯
MODERATE | False positives
(patients incorrectly classified as having staging) | 0 (6 to 0) |
|
|
Low-quality studies.
Imprecision between different studies
Different standard reference.
|
