Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821415›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms.

Miriam Brazzelli, Peter Ag Sandercock, Francesca M Chappell, Maria Grazia Celani, Enrico Righetti, Nicholas Arestis, Joanna M Wardlaw, Jonathan J Deeks

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Brazilian Guidelines of Hypertension - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Miriam BrazzelliDivision of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Bramwell Dott Building, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK, EH4 2XU.
Peter Ag Sandercock
Francesca M Chappell
Maria Grazia Celani
Enrico Righetti
Nicholas Arestis
Joanna M Wardlaw
Jonathan J Deeks
Western General Hospital · GBCasa di Cura Città di Roma · ITUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for the diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke but its sensitivity for the early detection of intracerebral haemorrhage has been debated. Computed tomography (CT) is extensively used in the clinical management of acute stroke, especially for the rapid exclusion of intracerebral haemorrhage.

objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and CT for acute ischaemic stroke, and to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for acute haemorrhagic stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (January 1995 to March 2009) and perused bibliographies of relevant studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that either compared DWI and CT in the same patients for detection of ischaemic stroke or examined the utility of MRI for detection of haemorrhagic stroke, had imaging performed within 12 hours of stroke onset, and presented sufficient data to allow construction of contingency tables. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and measures of accuracy. We assessed data on ischaemic stroke using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. MAIN

resultsEight studies with a total of 308 participants met our inclusion criteria. Seven studies contributed to the assessment of ischaemic stroke and two studies to the assessment of haemorrhagic stroke. The spectrum of patients was relatively narrow in all studies, sample sizes were small, there was substantial incorporation bias, and blinding procedures were often incomplete. Amongst the patients subsequently confirmed to have acute ischaemic stroke (161/226), the summary estimates for DWI were: sensitivity 0.99 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.00), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97). The summary estimates for CT were: sensitivity 0.39 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.69), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The two studies on haemorrhagic stroke reported high estimates for diffusion-weighted and gradient-echo sequences but had inconsistent reference standards. We did not calculate overall estimates for these two studies. We were not able to assess practicality or cost-effectiveness issues. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDWI appears to be more sensitive than CT for the early detection of ischaemic stroke in highly selected patients. However, the variability in the quality of included studies and the presence of spectrum and incorporation biases render the reliability and generalisability of observed results questionable. Further well-designed studies without methodological biases, in more representative patient samples, with practicality and cost estimates are now needed to determine which patients should undergo MRI and which CT in suspected acute stroke.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedCerebral HemorrhageHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityStroke

Identifiers

PMID19821415
PMCPMC13436845
OpenAlexW2148323585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.