METHODS: The PubMed, SAGE, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library and Ovid databases were searched for observational studies before October 2018. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).

RESULTS: Nine case-control studies involving 4385 lung cancer cases and 4142 controls were included in the analysis. The random-effects model was used to combine results from individual studies. The pooled odds ratio was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.27-0.56). There was no heterogeneity across studies (χ2=2.49, p=0.96, I2=0%).

OBJECTIVE: This review aims to evaluate the 13C-UBT diagnostic accuracy studies conducted among Asian population and validate its use for the Asian population.

METHODS: Original articles were systematically searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar using the PICOS strategy by applying relevant keywords. Only studies published in English and conducted in Asia were included. Our search returned 276 articles. After assessment, 11 articles which answered our research question and met the criteria set for systematic review and meta-analysis were accepted. A total of 15 study protocols were extracted from the 11 accepted articles.

FINDINGS: Majority of the studies were conducted in Hong Kong (six), followed by Taiwan (five), Japan (two), and one each in Singapore and Israel. All studies had used histology as part of its gold standard of reference. All but one study was performed on adult populations. The summary estimate for sensitivity was 97% (95% CI: 96, 98%), and specificity was 96% (95% CI: 95, 97%), with significant heterogeneity between studies. Adjusting for the dose (50 mg) and breath sample collection time (20 minutes) had improved both accuracy estimates and significantly reduced heterogeneity.