Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

  1. Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy*,
  2. Brian R Davidson

Editorial Group: Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group

Published Online: 14 NOV 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010213

How to Cite

Gurusamy KS, Davidson BR. Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD010213. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010213.

Author Information

  1. Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, Department of Surgery, London, UK

*Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Department of Surgery, Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, Royal Free Hospital,, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK. kurinchi2k@hotmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 14 NOV 2012

SEARCH

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in patients with focal pancreatic lesions.

We will explore the following sources of heterogeneity.

  1. Studies of low risk of bias versus those of unclear or high risk of bias (as assessed by the revised QUADAS tool as recommended by the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group) (Whiting 2006). In particular, we consider the studies which have been classified as 'yes' in the items differential verification, uninterpretable results and withdrawals as the most important sources of heterogeneity.
  2. Full text publications versus abstracts (this might give a clue on the publication bias since there may be an association between the results of the study and the study reaching full publication (Eloubeidi 2001).
  3. Prospective studies versus retrospective studies.
  4. Different types of reference standard.
  5. Symptomatic versus asymptomatic lesions (the presence of symptoms may increase the pretest probability).
  6. Solid versus cystic lesions (as the diagnostic accuracy of the imaging modalities may vary depending upon whether the lesion is solid or cystic).
  7. Patients with chronic pancreatitis versus those without chronic pancreatitis.
  8. Different criteria used by authors to classify the lesions.
  9. Single imaging versus sequential imaging (repeated imaging).
  10. Different intervals of sequential imaging (e.g. imaging every six months versus annual review).