SynthesisMedicine2017
Comparison between CT and MRI in the assessment of pulmonary embolism: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design-related bias in studies investigating diagnostic tests for venous thromboembolic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- Comment on "Evaluation of pulmonary nodules by magnetic resonance imaging sequences: which sequence will replace computed tomography?"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Pulmonary Embolism Presenting with Pulmonary Infarction: Update and Practical Review of Literature Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- State-of-the-Art Imaging for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Impact of pulmonary infarction after thromboembolism: A multicenter study.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBesides pulmonary arteriography, a number of imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), were adopted in the detection of identifying pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the contrast of sensitivity and specificity in these methods was studied little in a statistical way. To compare the effects of MRI and CT, this study used a series of methods to analyze data in included researches.
methodsA comprehensive computer search was conducted through internet up to July 2016. The quality assessment was performed by the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2 tool. The diagnostic value of comparison between MRI and CT was evaluated by using the pooled estimate of sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. In addition, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis were applied to ensure the accuracy of the results.
resultsTen studies with 590 cases were involved in the study. Only 2 trials had high risk regarding bias while other trials were supposed to be at low risk of applicability. Heterogeneity existed in analysis of both CT and MRI. The pooled sensitivity of CT was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.95), the pooled sensitivity of MRI was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), and pooled specificity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.77-0.97). The Q index of sensitivity and specificity for CT and MRI were 71.38, 19.67, 47.14, and 12.35, respectively. The SROC curve area under the curve of CT and MRI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95), respectively.
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates that MRI has better sensitivity and specificity in detecting subsegmental artery PE. MRI is a relatively better detection technique for PE. This conclusion is consistent with many published researches.
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.