Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29138506›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2017

Diagnostic performance of susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of calcifications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lisa C Adams, Keno Bressem, Sarah Maria Böker, Yi-Na Yvonne Bender, Dominik Nörenberg, Bernd Hamm, Marcus R Makowski

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Periarticular calcifications.Skeletal radiology · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. MR Imaging of the Pelvic Bones: The Current and Cutting-Edge Techniques.Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisa C AdamsDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. Lisa.adams@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5836-4542
Keno BressemDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Sarah Maria BökerDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Yi-Na Yvonne BenderDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Dominik NörenbergDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Marcus R MakowskiDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its introduction, susceptibility-weighted-magnetic resonance imaging (SW-MRI) has shown the potential to overcome the insensitivity of MRI to calcification. Previous studies reporting the diagnostic performance of SW-MRI and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of calcifications are inconsistent and based on single-institution designs. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis on SW-MRI, determining the potential of SW-MRI to detect calcifications. Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science for eligible diagnostic accuracy studies, which were published until March 24, 2017 and investigated the accuracy of SW-MRI to detect calcifications, using computed tomography (CT) as a reference. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality and methods for analysis were based on PRISMA. A bivariate diagnostic random-effects model was applied to obtain pooled sensitivities and specificities. Out of the 4629 studies retrieved by systematic literature search, 12 clinical studies with 962 patients and a total of 1,032 calcifications were included. Pooled sensitivity was 86.5% (95%-confidence interval (CI): 73.6-93.7%) for SW-MRI and 36.7% (95%-CI:29.2-44.8%) for standard MRI. Pooled specificities of SW-MRI (90.8%; 95%-CI:81.0-95.8%) and standard MRI (94.2; 95%-CI:88.9-96.7%) were comparable. Results of the present meta-analysis suggest, that SW-MRI is a reliable method for detecting calcifications in soft tissues.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCalcinosisCardiovascular DiseasesChildFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29138506
PMCPMC5686169
OpenAlexW2767480294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.