Quantifying the contribution of

backgroundThe value of

objectiveTo quantify the contribution of MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to Feb. 18, 2021. We included studies on patients with pediatric fever of unknown origin presenting sufficient data to calculate the likelihood of achieving definite diagnosis (based on pathology or clinical follow-up) between those with abnormal PET findings versus those with normal PET findings. We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and quantified the value of PET by pooling the likelihood of achieving definite diagnosis using a random-effects model.

resultsWe included 6 studies and found that pediatric patients with abnormal PET findings were about 17 times more likely to achieve definite diagnoses than those with normal PET findings (odds ratio [OR]: 16.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0-35, P < 0.00001). Sensitivity analyses using a fixed-effect model (OR 16.91, 95% CI 8.1-35, P < 0.0001) or removing one study at a time (OR 12-20, 95% CI lower bound 3.8-8.6, 95% CI upper bound 33-45, P < 0.0001) did not significantly alter the results. Sample size (interaction P = 0.75), imaging modality (interaction P = 0.29), length of follow-up (interaction P = 0.37), fever of unknown origin subclasses (interaction P = 0.89) and geographical areas (interaction P = 0.74) of studies showed no statistically significant influence on the results.

conclusion