English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The accuracy for endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography (EUS-EG) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses varies greatly and the pooled results have not been updated since 2013. Also, there still lack a comprehensive comparison among EUS-EG, contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS), and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA).Material and methods: A thorough search was made for diagnostic trials investigating the role of EUS-EG in solid pancreatic masses. Meta-Disc was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio and summary receiver operator characteristics. Results: Finally, 17 studies (1537 patients, 1544 lesions) were selected. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for qualitative methods were 0.97 (95%CI, 0.95-0.99) and 0.67 (95%CI, 0.59-0.74), respectively; the pooled sensitivity and specificity for strain histograms were 0.97 (95%CI, 0.95-0.98) and 0.67(95%CI, 0.61-0.73), respectively; the pooled sensitivity and specificity for strain ratio were 0.98 (95%CI, 0.96-0.99) and 0.62 (95%CI, 0.56-0.68), respectively; the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CE-EUS were 0.90 (95%CI, 0.83-0.95) and 0.76 (95%CI, 0.67-0.84), respectively; the pooled sensitivity and specificity for EUS-FNA were 0.84 (95%CI, 0.77-0.90) and 0.96(95%CI, 0.88-1.00), respectively.

Diagnostic utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis and systematic review