Endometrial sampling tests for the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: a protocol of a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review

Labib, S.W.; kamel, Menna; Nabhan, Ashraf

doi:10.31219/osf.io/vcwnt

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We conducted this systematic review using methodological approaches prespecified in a review protocol 11 which was prospectively registered in the Center for Open Science. 12 We reported this review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial cancer

Sakna

Elgendi

Salama

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: to determine the diagnostic accuracy of different endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial carcinoma. Design: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic accuracy. Eligibility criteria: We included published cross-sectional studies of women, of all ages, who had an endometrial sampling for preoperatively detecting endometrial cancer with verification using histopathology of hysterectomy specimens as the reference standard. We excluded case control and case series studies. Information sources: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from the date of inception of the databases to December 31, 2022. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. We searched the references of included studies and other systematic reviews. Risk of bias: We extracted study data and assessed study quality using the revised quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). Synthesis of results: We used bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis and presented the results in a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We assessed the certainty of evidence as recommended by the GRADE approach. Results: Ten included studies, published between 1986 and 2020, recruited 1390 participants. Seven studies were low risk of bias in all domains and all studies had low applicability concerns. The most commonly studies index tests were Pipelle and conventional dilation and curettage. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio (95% confidence intervals), for Pipelle were 0.774 (0.565, 0.900), 0.985 (0.927, 0.997), 97.000 (14.000, 349.000), and 0.241 (0.101, 0.442) and for conventional dilation and curettage were 0.880 (0.281, 0.993), 0.984 (0.956, 0.995), 59.300 (14.200, 153.000), and 0.194 (0.007, 0.732); respectively. Conclusion: High certainty evidence indicates that pre-operative endometrial sampling particularly using Pipelle or conventional curettage is accurate in diagnosing endometrial cancer. Studies assessing other endometrial sampling tests were sparse.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%