Diagnostic performance of ultrasound in the assessment of gastric contents: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Insights into Imaging

Table 2 Results of bivariate meta-regression (sensitivity and specificity) and subgroup analysis

Parameter	Category	No	Se [95% CI]	p-value	Sp [95% CI]	p-value
Operator	Yes: sonologist	4	0.85 [0.68–1.00]	0.13	0.89 [0.75–1.00]	0.85
Operator	No: clinician	5	0.97 [0.93–1.00]	0.13	0.84 [0.68–0.99]
Design	Yes: RCT	4	0.94 [0.84–1.00]	0.77	0.77 [0.60–0.95]	0.05
Design	No: Cohort Study	5	0.94 [0.85–1.00]	0.77	0.93 [0.84–1.00]
Patient	Yes: special patients	2	0.89 [0.66–1.00]	0.91	0.92 [0.79–1.00]	0.33
Patient	No: health volunteer	7	0.95 [0.88–1.00]	0.91	0.84 [0.71–0.96]
Year	Yes: < 2018	2	0.98 [0.94–1.00]	*0.02	0.90 [0.71–1.00]	0.50
Year	No: ≥ 2018	7	0.91 [0.83–1.00]	*0.02	0.85 [0.73–0.97]
Criteria	Yes: quantitative	4	0.98 [0.93–1.00]	*0.04	0.93 [0.83–1.00]	0.36
Criteria	No: qualitative	5	0.90 [0.78–1.00]	*0.04	0.81 [0.65–0.96]

^*p < 0.05, the difference was statistically significant. 95%CI 95% confidence interval, No number of articles, RCT randomized controlled trial, Se sensitivity, Sp specificity