Table 5.

Summary of the studies evaluating CLE in pancreatic disease screening and diagnosis (all “per patient” analysis).

Authors and year	Country	N	Mean age (yr)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)	Accuracy (%)	Main findings
Konda et al. 2011 [15]	USA	18 patients	57.9	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	nCLE is the pancreas is technically feasible.
Konda et al. 2013 [14]	USA Germany France	66 patients	63.1	59	100	100	50	71	nCLE has a high specificity in the detection of PCN but it may be limited by a low sensitivity.
Kahaleh et al. 2015 [116]	USA France	18 patients	58.3	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	94	CLE is effective in assisting with diagnosis of indeterminate pancreatic duct strictures prior to surgery.
Nakai et al. 2015 [117]	USA	30 patients	72	87	77	100	100	77	The combination of cystoscopy and nCLE of pancreatic cysts appears to have strong concordance with the clinical diagnosis of PCN.
Napoléon et al. 2015 [118]	France	31 patients	57	69	100	100	82	87	The newly developed nCLE criterion seems to be highly specific for the diagnosis of serous cystadenoma.

N stands for the number of patients enrolled in the study; nCLE, needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy; CLE, confocal laser endomicroscopy; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; and PCN, pancreatic cystic neoplasms.