Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29768368›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2018

Meta-analysis of computed tomography angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography for intracranial aneurysm.

Xiaodan Chen, Yun Liu, Huazhang Tong, Yonghai Dong, Dongyang Ma, Lei Xu, Cheng Yang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. [Cardiovascular consequences of smoking : Imaging overview].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Delayed diagnosis of intracranial aneurysm in pediatrics: the risk of misdiagnosis-a case report.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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.

Xiaodan ChenDepartment of Science and Education, Jiangxi Provincial Cancer Hospital Cadre Wards of Neurology Medicine Department of Cancer Radiotherapy, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital Jiangxi Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanchang Nanhui Mental Health Center, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, China.
Yun Liu
Huazhang Tong
Yonghai Dong
Dongyang Ma
Lei Xu
Cheng Yang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether the diagnosis value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for intracranial aneurysm is in accordance with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize relevant studies to compare the diagnostic efficacies of the 2 methods.

methodsPotentially relevant studies were selected through PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases by using the core terms "computer tomography angiography" (CTA) and "magnetic resonance angiography" (MRA) and "intracranial aneurysm*" in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles. Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were count. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to summarize the overall diagnostic performance. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata version 12.0 and MetaDisc 1.4 software.

resultsTen articles were identified in this current paper. For CTA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.84 (95%CI = 0.81-0.86); specificity, 0.85 (95%CI = 0.79-0.89); PLR, 4.09 (95%CI = 2.45-6.81); NLR, 0.18 (95%CI = 0.11-0.28); DOR, 23.74 (95%CI = 10.49-53.74); AUC, 0.90, respectively. For MRA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.80 (95%CI = 0.77-0.83); specificity, 0.87 (95%CI = 0.82-0.91); PLR, 3.61 (95%CI = 1.72-7.55); NLR; 0.27 (95%CI = 0.21-0.35); DOR, 16.77 (95%CI = 7.38-38.11); AUC, 0.87, respectively. No significant difference was found the AUC value between CTA and MRA for intracranial aneurysm (Z = 0.828, P > .05).

conclusionThis comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that the diagnosis value of CTA was in accordance with MRA for intracranial aneurysm. However, considering the limitation of sample size, the results should be treated with caution.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyMagnetic Resonance AngiographyArea Under CurveHumansIntracranial Aneurysm

Identifiers

PMID29768368
PMCPMC5976319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.