Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38758253›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2024

Computed tomography versus ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guilherme Strieder de Oliveira, Giovanni Brondani Torri, Fernanda Engel Gandolfi, Adriano Basso Dias, Justin Ruey Tse, Martina Zaguini Francisco, Bruno Hochhegger, Stephan Altmayer

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Guilherme Strieder de OliveiraUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Giovanni Brondani TorriUniversidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.
Fernanda Engel GandolfiUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Adriano Basso DiasUniversity Medical Imaging Toronto; Joint Department of Medical Imaging; University Health Network-Sinai Health System-Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Justin Ruey TseDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Martina Zaguini FranciscoDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Bruno HochheggerDepartment of Radiology, University of Florida, Florida, FL, USA.
Stephan AltmayerDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. altmayer@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9214-1916

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSome patients undergo both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) sequentially as part of the same evaluation for acute cholecystitis (AC). Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of US and CT in the diagnosis of AC. MATERIALS AND

methodsDatabases were searched for relevant published studies through November 2023. The primary objective was to compare the head-to-head performance of US and CT using surgical intervention or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. For the secondary analysis, all individual US and CT studies were analyzed. The pooled sensitivities, specificities, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were determined along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The prevalence of imaging findings was also evaluated.

resultsSixty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. In the primary analysis of head-to-head studies (n = 5), CT had a pooled sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI, 78.4-88.2%) versus 79.0% (95% CI, 68.8-86.6%) of US (p = 0.44). The pooled specificity of CT was 94% (95% CI, 82.0-98.0%) versus 93.6% (95% CI, 79.4-98.2%) of US (p = 0.85). The concordance of positive or negative test between both modalities was 82.3% (95% CI, 72.1-89.4%). US and CT led to a positive change in management in only 4 to 8% of cases, respectively, when ordered sequentially after the other test.

conclusionThe diagnostic performance of CT is comparable to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, with a high rate of concordance between the two modalities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A subsequent US after a positive or negative CT for suspected acute cholecystitis may be unnecessary in most cases. KEY POINTS: When there is clinical suspicion of acute cholecystitis, patients will often undergo both CT and US. CT has similar sensitivity and specificity compared to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. The concordance rate between CT and US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis is 82.3%.

Indexed as

Cholecystitis, AcuteSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyHumansAcute cholecystitisComputed tomographyGallbladderUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID38758253

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.