Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31574825›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance and computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yanjun Gao, Jing Wang, Hairong Lv, Yongjie Xue, Rongrong Jia, Ge Liu, Weixian Bai, Yi Wu, Lang Zhang, Junle Yang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Yanjun GaoDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Jing WangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an Hospital of TCM.
Hairong LvDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Yongjie XueDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Rongrong JiaDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Ge LiuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Weixian BaiDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Yi WuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Lang ZhangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an No. 3 Hospital.
Junle YangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Xi'an Central Hospital, Xi'an, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical resection is the recommended procedure for colorectal cancer (CRC), but majority of the patients were diagnosed with advanced or metastatic CRC. Currently, there were inconsistent results about the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in early CRC diagnosis. Our study conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC for CRC surveillance.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRC and CTC, respectively.

resultTwenty-five studies including 2985 individuals were selected in the final analysis. Eight studies evaluated the diagnostic value of MRC, and 17 studies assessed CTC. The summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in MRC for early detection of CRC were 0.98 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.80-1.00), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97), 15.48 (95% CI: 6.30-38.04), 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.25), 115.09 (95% CI: 15.37-862.01), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), respectively. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of CTC for diagnosing CRC were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 154.11 (95% CI: 67.81-350.22), 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.13), 642.51 (95% CI: 145.05-2846.02), and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00). No significant differences were found between MRC and CTC for DOR in all the subsets.

conclusionThe findings of meta-analysis indicated that MRC and CTC have higher diagnostic values for early CRC diagnosis. However, the DOR for diagnosing CRC between MRC and CTC showed no significance.

Indexed as

AgedColonography, Computed TomographicColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31574825
PMCPMC6775409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.