Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2013; 19(37): 6284-6291
Published online Oct 7, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i37.6284
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the studies in the analysis
Ref.Type of publicationDesign of studyDiagnostic standardCut-offNo.
Săftoiu et al[7]Full textSingle centerHue histogram> 17554
Iglesias-Garcia et al[8]Full textSingle centerColor patternBlue-predominant76
Janssen et al[9]Full textSingle centerColor patternBlue-predominant25
Deprez et al[10]AbstractSingle centerColor patternBlue-predominant13
Săftoiu et al[11]Full textSingle centerHue histogram> 17543
Iglesias-Garcia et al[12]Full textSingle centerColor patternBlue-predominant119
Giovannini et al[13]Full textMulticenterColor patternBlue-predominant96
Giovannini et al[14]Full textSingle centerColor patternBlue-predominant18
Itokawa et al[24]Full textSingle centerColor patternBlue-predominant79
Săftoiu et al[34]Full textMulticenterColor pattern> 175258
Table 2 Meta-regression analysis for the potential source of heterogeneity
Study characteristicsZP value95%CI
Diagnostic standard (color pattern vs hue histogram)2.900.000.68-3.50
Blind (yes vs unclear)1.360.17-0.87-4.82
Sample size (≥ 50 vs < 50)0.130.90-1.90-2.17
Type of publication (full text vs abstract)1.280.20-1.33-6.37
Design of study (single center vs multicenter)0.040.97-1.35-1.40
Table 3 Subgroup analysis on the basis of the diagnostic standards
Pooled estimateColor pattern (n = 426)1
Hue histogram (n = 355)2
Pooled result (95%CI)I2Pooled result (95%CI)I2
Sensitivity0.99 (0.97-1.00)0.00%0.92 (0.89-0.95)20.10%
Specificity0.76 (0.67-0.83)0.00%0.68 (0.57-0.78)0.00%
Positive LR3.36 (2.39-4.72)17.90%2.84 (2.05-3.93)0.00%
Negative LR0.03 (0.01-0.07)0.00%0.12 (0.08-0.19)0.00%
Diagnostic OR129.96 (47.02-359.16)0.00%24.69 (12.81-47.59)0.00%