ABSTRACT
Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05-0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.
ABSTRACT
Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.