Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32328842›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020

Imaging modalities for inguinal hernia diagnosis: a systematic review.

E Piga, D Zetner, K Andresen, J Rosenberg

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Groin hernia.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Recommendations for the diagnosis of occult inguinal hernias using a modified Delphi technique.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The role of routine groin ultrasonography in the management of inguinal hernia.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E PigaDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. 0006emily@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7951-4826
D ZetnerDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8533-8777
K AndresenDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9820-3580
J RosenbergDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0063-1086
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study was to determine which diagnostic modality [Computerized Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), or ultrasound (US)] is more precise in terms of sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing inguinal hernia and sub-type of inguinal hernia (direct or indirect).

methodsThis systematic review was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and a search for relevant articles was undertaken in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were original studies that preoperatively diagnosed patients suspected of inguinal hernia by either CT, MRI, or US and compared diagnostic findings with operative findings or definitive follow-up. The main outcomes were the diagnostic certainty of inguinal hernia and type of hernia by sensitivity and specificity. All eligible studies were searched in the Retraction Watch database to ensure that all included studies were suitable for inclusion.

resultsBubble charts depicting the size of each patient cohort and percentual range for both sensitivity and specificity showed that US was better than CT and MRI in diagnosing inguinal hernia. Bubble charts for US and CT depicted high values within the studies that reported sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing type of hernia.

conclusionsWe found that US had the highest sensitivity and specificity. However, it must be taken into consideration that performance is highly dependent on the operator's level of expertise. Based on this systematic review, ultrasound may be the preferred imaging modality when physical examination is inconclusive, given that local expertise in performing US examination for hernia disease is adequate.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhysical ExaminationSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyDiagnostic modalitiesInguinal herniaSensitivitySpecificitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32328842
OpenAlexW3020536088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.