ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2020
Application value analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the diagnosis of intracranial infection after craniocerebral surgery.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent advances in diagnostic technologies for postoperative central nervous system infections: a review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracranial infection is a common clinical disease. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have certain sensitivity and have good diagnostic efficacy.
aimTo study the application value of MRI and CT in the diagnosis of intracranial infection after craniocerebral surgery.
methodsWe selected 82 patients who underwent craniocerebral surgery (including 40 patients with intracranial infection and 42 patients without infection) during the period from April 2016 to June 2019 in our hospital. All 82 patients received CT and MRI examinations, and their clinical data were reviewed. A retrospective analysis was performed, and the coincidence rate of positive diagnosis and the overall diagnosis coincidence rate of different pathogenic infection types were measured with the two examination methods. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity as well as the positive and negative predictive values of the two examination methods were compared.
resultsFor all types of pathogenic infections (
conclusionMRI examination can accurately diagnose intracranial infection after clinical craniocerebral surgery. Compared with CT, MRI had higher diagnostic efficiency. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, the diagnostic coincidence rate, and the positive and negative predictive values were significantly higher with MRI than with conventional CT, which can be actively promoted.
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.