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/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Background  Distinguishing hydatidiform moles ( HM s) from nonmolar specimens and the subclassification of  HM  are important because complete hydatidiform mole ( CHM ) is associated with an increased risk of development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology has poor inter‐observer reproducibility. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of p57  KIP   2  immunostaining improves diagnostic accuracy for  CHM .    Objectives  To evaluate the accuracy of p57  KIP   2  immunostaining compared with molecular genotyping for the diagnosis of  CHM .    Search strategy  Major databases were searched from inception to March 2017 using the terms ‘hydatidiform mole’, ‘p57’, and ‘genotyping’, with their variations, and the search limit for the relevant study design.    Selection criteria  Any cross‐sectional study, case series, case–control study, cohort study, or clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy of p57  KIP   2  immunostaining for the diagnosis of  CHM  compared with genotyping was included. Case reports, narrative reviews, expert opinions, and animal testing were excluded.    Data collection and analysis  Extracted accuracy data were tabulated and pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random effects model.    Main results  Bivariate meta‐analysis produced a summary sensitivity of 0.984 (95%  CI : 0.916–1.000) and specificity of 0.625 (95%  CI : 0.503–0.736) with significant heterogeneity for specificity ( I  2  = 71.8, chi‐square  P  = 0.029). The pooled summary diagnostic odds ratio was 56.54 (95%  CI : 11.03–289.74) with no heterogeneity ( I  2  = 0.00%, chi‐square  P  = 0.67). The diagnostic performance of the test was high with an area under the curve of (AUC) 0.980.    Conclusions  p57  KIP   2  immunostaining is accurate when diagnosing CHM. It can be used as an adjunct test in a combination algorithmic approach.    Tweetable abstract  A meta‐analysis to evaluate the accuracy of p57  KIP   2  compared with genotyping to diagnose CHM.

Accuracy of p57 KIP 2 compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis