SynthesisJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2016
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis in the general population.
Synthesis in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid MRI Abdomen for Assessment of Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis in the General Adult Population: a Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Pooled it
- Small Study Effects in Diagnostic Imaging Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pregnancy and appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical use of MRI in diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnant women.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2019Pooled it
- Equivocal MRI findings of suspected acute appendicitis in children and young adults: utilization of novel 5-component scoring system for improving diagnostic accuracy.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Appendicitis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Applicability of American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Decision-Making Model for Acute Appendicitis Diagnosis in Children.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Abdominal fellowship-trained versus generalist radiologist accuracy when interpreting MR and CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis.European radiology · 2022Observational
- Diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on clinical scores: is it a myth or reality?Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Review
- Prospective evaluation of MRI compared with CT for the etiology of abdominal pain in emergency department patients with concern for appendicitis.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Observational
- Observational
- Tomoelastography for non-invasive detection and treatment monitoring in acute appendicitis.BMJ case reports · 2019Article
- [Rational diagnostics of acute appendicitis].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019Review
- MRI of the bowel - beyond inflammatory bowel disease.Pediatric radiology · 2018Review
- Prospective Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Imaging versus CT for Acute Appendicitis.Radiology · 2018Observational
- Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Versus CT for the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Children and Young Adults.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2017Article
- Trends in the Use of Medical Imaging to Diagnose Appendicitis at an Academic Medical Center.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2016Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal MRI for Suspected Appendicitis: How We Do It.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies since 2005 that evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population presenting to emergency departments. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis published in English and listed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl Plus, and the Cochrane Library since 2005 were included. Excluded studies were those without an explicitly stated reference standard, with insufficient data to calculate the study outcomes, or if the population enrolled was limited to pregnant women or children. Data were abstracted by one investigator and confirmed by another. Data included the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, number of equivocal cases, type of MRI scanner, type of MRI sequence, and demographic data including study setting and gender distribution. Summary test characteristics were calculated. Forest plots and a summary receiver operator characteristic plot were generated.
resultsTen studies met eligibility criteria, representing patients from seven countries. Nine were prospective and two were multicenter studies. A total of 838 subjects were enrolled; 406 (48%) were women. All studies routinely used unenhanced MR images, although two used intravenous contrast-enhancement and three used diffusion-weighted imaging. Using a bivariate random-effects model the summary sensitivity was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.3%-98.5%) and summary specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.4%).
conclusionMRI has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis, similar to that reported previously for computed tomography. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1346-1354.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.