SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
A meta-analysis of the performance of ultrasound, hepatobiliary scintigraphy, CT and MRI in the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound cystic artery velocity as a predictor for acute cholecystitis in patients presenting to the emergency department.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Evaluating and communicating probability of acute cholecystitis consistently using a data-derived risk stratification algorithm synthesizing ultrasound and clinical parameters.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Personalized Approaches to Patients with Intra-Abdominal Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Hepatic artery peak systolic velocity compared to non-Doppler ultrasound observations for predicting acute cholecystitis: diagnostic performance and impact on a risk categorization approach.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Cholecystostomy: Procedural Guidance and Future Directions for Clinical Management.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024Review
- Intra-abdominal infections survival guide: a position statement by the Global Alliance For Infections In Surgery.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the recently reported relative diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI, and cholescintigraphy for diagnosing acute cholecystitis.
methods2 radiologists independently performed systematic electronic searches for articles published between 2000 and 2021 and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria. 2 different radiologists extracted data from the articles and scored each with a methodological quality tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated with a bivariate linear mixed model. A second analysis made head-to-head comparisons (US vs. CT, US vs. cholescintigraphy). Factors were also analyzed for potential confounding effects on diagnostic accuracy.
resultsOf 6121 initial titles, 22 were included. The prevalence of cholecystitis varied widely across studies (9.4-98%). Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were 69% (confidence limit [CL] 62-76%) and 79% (CL 71-86%) for US, 91% (CL 86-94%) and 63% (CL 51-74%) for cholescintigraphy, 78% (CL 69-84%) and 81% (CL 71-88%) for CT, and 91% (CL 78-97%) and 93% (CL 70-99%) for MRI. Regarding head-to-head comparisons, the sensitivity of CT (87.6%, CL 70-96%) was significantly higher than US (66.8%, CL 43-84%), while specificities (81.7% with CL 54-95% for US, 91.9% with CL 67-99% for CT) were similar. The sensitivity of cholescintigraphy (87.4%, CL 76-94%) was significantly greater than US (61.6%, CL 44-77%), while the specificity of US (82%, CL 65-92%) was significantly higher than cholescintigraphy (68%, CL 47-84%).
conclusionRecent data suggests that CT may have a higher sensitivity than US for diagnosing acute cholecystitis, with similar specificity. Cholescintigraphy remains a highly sensitive modality with lower specificity than previously reported. MRI remains under studied, but with promising results.
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.