Comparison of standard vs auxiliary (contrast or elastography) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis

Table 3 Comparative analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy with auxiliary vs standard technique with sensitivity analysis

Comparison of EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary vs standard techniques	No. of studies	Relative risk	P value	Tau2
Relative sensitivity
Overall	9	1.04 (0.99-1.09)	0.0828	0.91
Studies with CEH-EUS-FNA/B	8	1.05 (1.00-1.10)	0.0729	1.05
Randomized studies	4	1.00 (0.97-1.03)	0.9006	1.41
Relative specificity
Overall	9	1.00 (1.00-1.01)	0.8123	0.41
Studies with CEH-EUS-FNA/B	8	1.00 (1.00-1.01)	0.8096	8.42
Randomized studies	4	1.01 (0.96-1.06)	0.7840	6.31
				I2
Diagnostic accuracy
Overall	10	1.02 (0.98-1.07)	0.33	50%
Studies with CEH-EUS-FNA/B	9	1.03 (0.98-1.09)	0.23	55%
After single pass	5	1.01 (0.93-1.10)	0.19	35%
Randomized studies	4	0.99 (0.95-1.02)	0.45	0%

EUS-FNA/B: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy; CEH-EUS-FNA/B: Contrast-enhanced harmonic-EUS-FNA/B.