Corneal confocal microscopy for assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) in assessing corneal nerve parameters in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). METHODS: Studies in the literature that focused on CCM and DPN were retrieved by searching PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (EMBASE) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. RevMan V.5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. The results are presented as weighted mean difference (WMD) with a corresponding 95% CI. RESULTS: 13 studies with a total of 1680 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that the corneal nerve fibre density, nerve branch density and nerve fibre length were significantly reduced (all p<0.00001) in the patients with DPN compared with healthy controls ((WMD=-18.07, 95% CI -21.93 to -14.20), (WMD=-25.35, 95% CI -30.96 to -19.74) and (WMD=-6.37, 95% CI -7.44 to -5.30)) and compared with the diabetic patients without DPN ((WMD=-8.83, 95% CI -11.49 to -6.17), (WMD=-13.54, 95% CI -20.41 to -6.66) and (WMD=-4.19, 95% CI -5.35 to -3.04)), respectively. No significant difference was found in the corneal nerve fibre tortuosity coefficient between diabetic patients with DPN and healthy controls (p=0.80) or diabetic patients without DPN (p=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggested that CCM may be valuable for detecting and assessing early nerve damage in DPN patients.

Computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performances of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET or PET/CT) for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified with MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to July 2010. We estimated the weighted summary sensitivities, specificities, OR (odds ratio), and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves of each imaging technique and conducted pair-wise comparisons using the two-sample Z-test. Meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and funnel plots were also performed to explain the between-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible studies were included, with a total of 882 patients. PET or PET/CT was a more accurate modality (sensitivity, 73.2%; specificity, 96.7%; OR [odds ratio], 90.32). No significant difference was detected between CT (sensitivity, 42.6%; specificity, 95.0%; OR, 19.87) and MR imaging (sensitivity, 54.7%; specificity, 88.3%; OR, 12.38). Meta-regression analyses and subgroup analyses revealed no statistical difference. Funnel plots with marked asymmetry suggested a publication bias. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT is more accurate than CT and MR imaging in the detection of lymph node metastasis in patients with ovarian cancer.