A meta‐analysis comparing confocal microscopy and dermoscopy in diagnostic accuracy of lentigo maligna

• Published in: Skin research and technology 2020-07, Vol.26 (4), p.494-502
• Main Authors: Hao, Tian, Meng, Xian‐Fu, Li, Cheng‐Xin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Confocal microscopy; dermoscopy; Diagnosis; Diagnostic systems; Heterogeneity; lentigo maligna; Libraries; Meta-analysis; Reflectance confocal microscopy; Search engines
• ISSN: 0909-752X; 1600-0846
• DOI: 10.1111/srt.12821

Purpose We aimed to summarize the sensitivity and specificity between RCM and dermoscopy in LM diagnosis. Methods A meta‐analysis was conducted to the study. PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Wiley Online Library database were searched for relevant studies. The basic information of the patients, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. I2 was used for the assessment of the heterogeneity. A random‐effect model was used for analyzing the data of the literature study. Results A total of 498 patients from 7 articles were included in the study. The articles summarized the sensitivity and specificity between RCM and dermoscopy in the treatment of lentigo maligna. The overall sensitivity of RCM was 0.93, and the overall specificity was 0.89. RCM diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 104.38, RCM positive likelihood (+LR/PLR) was 8.50, and the negative LR (‐LR/NLR) was 0.08. The overall sensitivity of dermoscopy was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.58‐0.84), and the overall specificity was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71‐0.92). The DOR, +LR, and −LR of dermoscopy were 14.48, 4.65, and 0.32, respectively. Conclusion RCM has a better accuracy than dermoscopy in the diagnosis of LM.