| Autor: |
Nie, Tingfen, Jiang, Xuebing, Zheng, Baoyong, Zhang, Yanxiu |
| Zdroj: |
International Journal of Clinical Practice; Aug2021, Vol. 75 Issue 8, p1-6, 6p |
| Abstrakt: |
Introduction: Many concerns were raised about the sensitivity and specificity outcome of reflectance confocal microscopy compared to dermoscopy for the diagnosis of lentigo maligna. However, the reported relationships between their sensitivity and specificity were variable. Our meta‐analysis was performed to clarify this relationship. Methods: A systematic literature search up to July 2020 was performed and six included studies had 479 subjects at the baseline with 294 undergoing lentigo maligna diagnoses. They were reporting relationships between sensitivity and specificity outcome of reflectance confocal microscopy compared to dermoscopy for the diagnosis of lentigo maligna. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated to evaluate the prognostic role of the sensitivity and specificity of reflectance confocal microscopy compared to dermoscopy for the diagnosis of lentigo maligna using the continuous method with a random or fixed‐effect model. Results: Reflectance confocal microscopy was significantly related to higher specificity (MD, 19.10; 95% CI, 0.93‐37.28, P =.04) compared to dermoscopy in lentigo maligna diagnosis. However, reflectance confocal microscopy was only relatively but not significantly related to higher sensitivity (MD, 14.56; 95% CI, 0.29‐28.83, P =.05) compared to dermoscopy in lentigo maligna diagnosis. Conclusions: Based on this meta‐analysis, the reflectance confocal microscopy compared to dermoscopy in lentigo maligna diagnosis had a significantly higher specificity and relatively higher sensitivity. This relationship forces us to recommend reflectance confocal microscopy in lentigo maligna diagnosis for better outcomes and to avoid any possible false‐negative results. Further studies are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
