Diagnostic performance of elastosonography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors: A meta-analysis.Purpose
 The clinical practice of elastosonography for the detection of salivary gland tumors is still a controversial issue.  The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of elastosonography for the diagnosis of salivary gland tumors and to compare the diagnostic value of elastosonography and conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of salivary gland tumors.


 The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of elastosonography.  The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of elastosonography for the differentiation between benign and malignant salivary gland tumors were 0.73 (95%CI, 0.66-0.78), 0.64 (95%CI, 0.61-0.67), 2.83 (95%CI, 1.97-4.07), 0.45 (95%CI, 0.32-0.62), and 9.86 (95%CI, 4.49-21.62), respectively, with an AUC of 0.82.  The meta-regression and subgroup analyses found that assessment methods were associated with significant heterogeneity, and quantitative or semiquantitative elastosonography performed better than the qualitative one.


 Elastosonography showed a limited value for diagnosing malignant salivary gland tumors; it could be considered as a supplementary diagnostic technology to conventional ultrasound, and quantitative or semiquantitative elastosonography was superior to the qualitative one.
elastosonography
A comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was carried out from inception to November 2021. 
PubMed
A comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was carried out from inception to November 2021. 
EMBASE
A comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was carried out from inception to November 2021. 
Cochrane Library
Meta-DiSc version 1.4, Review Manager 5.3, and StataSE 15 were used.



Meta-DiSc
Meta-DiSc version 1.4, Review Manager 5.3, and StataSE 15 were used.



Review Manager 5.3
Meta-DiSc version 1.4, Review Manager 5.3, and StataSE 15 were used.



StataSE 15