ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Diagnosis efficiency for pulmonary embolism using magnetic resonance imaging method: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Design-related bias in studies investigating diagnostic tests for venous thromboembolic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison between CT and MRI in the assessment of pulmonary embolism: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Pulmonary thromboembolism: new diagnostic imaging techniques.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PE (Pulmonary embolism, PE) is a common disease, usually caused by blockage of pulmonary artery and its branches due to exogenous or endogenous embolic obstruction. PE always be misdiagnosed in clinical. The aim of this study is to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing the resectability of PE. In this study, a meta-analysis of the reported sensitivity and specificity of each study with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was performed. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that the quality assessment scores ranged from 11 to 13, with a mean study quality score of 12. The sensitivity and specificity values including 95% CI at the patient level were calculated. The sensitivities ranged from 78% to 100%, and the specificity ranged from 99% to 100%. The pooled sensitivity value including 95% CI was 0.83 (0.78-0.88), and with inconsistency (I (2)) of 62.8%. The pooled specificity value including 95% CI was 0.99 (0.98-1.00), with inconsistency (I(2)) of 0.0%. Pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) (95% CI) was 70.22 (29.04-169.76), and the pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR) (95% CI) was 0.19 (0.14-0.25). The overall diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% CI) was 448.98 (163.47-1233.18). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) data illustrated that the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9852. In conclusion, the MRI method may be acts as a potential and assistant method for the PE diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26550429PMC4613114What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.