The diagnostic accuracy of a real-time optoelectronic device in cervical cancer screening: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Background:This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a real-time optoelectronic device (TruScreen) for uterine cervical cancer screening.Methods:On the basis of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (the PRISMA statement) we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, and WanFang Data using medical subject headings (MeSH) and text words. Title/abstract screening, full text check, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (with the QUADAS-2 tool) were performed by 2 reviewers independently. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the summary receiver operator characteristic curve, and the area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed with Meta-DiSc software. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran's Q test and I2, meta-regression was conducted based on patient type, and the possibility of publication bias was evaluated using Deeks funnel plot in Stata software.Results:Of 293 publications, nine met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2730 patients and 567 cervical intraepithelial neoplasias. The pooled test characteristics for the TruScreen were as follows: sensitivity 76% (95% CI, 73–80%), specificity 69% (95% CI, 67%–71%), PLR 2.30 (95% CI, 1.59–3.33), and NLR 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23–0.51). The corresponding pooled DOR was 7.03 (95% CI, 3.40–14.55). The AUC was 0.7859 (Q* = 0.7236).Conclusion:The diagnostic accuracy of the TruScreen device is moderately good. The study findings are based on Chinese studies only and could not be generalized to other populations.

    loading  Loading Related Articles