Usefulness of CT angiography in diagnosing acute gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Study characteristics

Author	Yr	n	Age (average, yr)	Study design	Patient selection	Type of CT	Reference standard	Male/female	QUADASscore
Ettorre et al[16]	1997	18	N/A	Prospective	Unselected	Single slice	Conventional angiography or surgery	N/A	9
Ernst et al[17]	2003	24	59 (18-85)	Prospective	Unselected	Single slice	Colonoscopy, enteroscopy or surgery	15/4	10
Tew et al[18]	2004	13	N/A	Retrospective	Unselected	4-slice	Conventional angiography, surgery or clinical follow-up	15/4	9
Miller et al[19]	2004	18	69 (43-83)	Prospective	Selected	Dual slice	Endoscopy, colonoscopy or conventional angiography	9/9	6
Sabharwal et al[20]	2006	7	69 (48-83)	Prospective	Selected	4-slice	Conventional angiography or colonoscopy	2/5	10
Yoon et al[21]	2006	26	66 (18-89)	Prospective	Unselected	4-slice	Digital subtraction angiography	17/9	12
Jaeckle et al[22]	2008	36	51 (4-85)	Retrospective	Selected	16, 40-slice	Endoscopy, or surgery	22/14	10
Zink et al[23]	2008	41	55 (21-92)	Prospective	Selected	16-slice	Labeled red blood cell scan or surgery	N/A	9
Lee et al[24]	2009	15	72 (42-90)	Retrospective	Unselected	16, 64-slice	Conventional angiogram, colonoscopy, capsule enteroscopy, labeled red blood cell scan or surgery	9/6	9

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) score: study quality was evaluated using the 14 items specified in the QUADAS tool. One point was given for each criterion met, giving a total quality score out of 14. N/A: Data not available; CT: Computed tomography.

Table 2 Study results

Study	n	TP	FP	FN	TN	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)
Ettorre et al[16]	18	13	0	3	2	0.81 (0.54-0.96)	1.00 (0.16-1.00)
Ernst et al[17]	24	15	0	4	5	0.79 (0.54-0.94)	1.00 (0.48-1.00)
Tew et al[18]	13	7	0	0	6	1.00 (0.59-1.00)	1.00 (0.54-1.00)
Miller et al[19]	18	14	0	2	2	0.88 (0.62-0.98)	1.00 (0.16-1.00)
Sabharwal et al[20]	7	5	0	0	2	1.00 (0.48-1.00)	1.00 (0.16-1.00)
Yoon et al[21]	26	20	1	2	3	0.91 (0.71-0.99)	0.75 (0.19-0.99)
Jaeckle et al[22]	36	26	0	0	10	1.00 (0.87-1.00)	1.00 (0.69-1.00)
Zink et al[23]	41	5	5	1	30	0.83 (0.36-1.00)	0.86 (0.70-0.95)
Lee et al[24]	15	7	5	2	1	0.78 (0.40-0.97)	0.17 (0.00-0.64)

FN: False negative; FP: False positive; NA: Not applicable; TN: True negative; TP: True positive.