Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 21, 2024; 30(7): 742-758
Published online Feb 21, 2024. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i7.742
Figure 1
Figure 1 The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram for study selection. EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound.
Figure 2
Figure 2  Risk of bias summary.
Figure 3
Figure 3 Forest plot of diagnostic and complications accuracy. A: Forest plot of diagnostic and accuracy in focal liver lesion detection (FLL); B: Forest plot of complications in FLL diagnosis. EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; CEH-EUS: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound; FNA: Fine-needle aspiration; FNB: Fine-needle biopsy.
Figure 4
Figure 4 Forest plot of diagnostic accuracy and complications in parenchymal liver disease detection. A: Forest plot of diagnostic accuracy in parenchymal liver disease (PLD) detection; B: Forest plot of complications in PLD diagnosis. EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; FNA: Fine-needle aspiration; FNB: Fine-needle biopsy.
Figure 5
Figure 5 Forest plot of the technical success rate of endoscopic ultrasound. A: Forest plot of the technical success rate of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in detecting portal hypertension; B: Forest plot of the technical success rate of EUS-guided liver abscess drainage; C: Forest plot of the clinical success rate of EUS-guided liver abscess drainage.