SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Meta-analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries.
methodsThe literature search was performed up to December 8, 2023, and included a comprehensive examination of several databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP. Diagnostic metrics sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) were determined using a bivariate model analysis. Heterogeneity within the data was explored through subgroup analyses, which considered variables including geographical region, use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), arthroscopy, and study design.
resultsThe analysis included ten studies encompassing 544 patients. DECT demonstrated substantial diagnostic utility for ACL injuries of the knee, with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.94), a specificity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-0.95), a PLR of 9.20 (95% CI: 4.50-19.00), a NLR of 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14), a DOR of 97.00 (95% CI: 35.00-268.00), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97). The subgroup analyses consistently showed high diagnostic precision for ACL injuries across Asian population (sensitivity: 0.91, specificity: 0.91, PLR: 9.90, NLR: 0.09, DOR: 105.00, AUC: 0.96), in MRI subgroup (sensitivity: 0.85, specificity: 0.94, PLR: 9.57, NLR: 0.18, DOR: 56.00, AUC: 0.93), in arthroscopy subgroup (sensitivity: 0.92, specificity: 0.89, PLR: 8.40, NLR: 0.09, DOR: 94.00, AUC: 0.95), for prospective studies (sensitivity: 0.92, specificity: 0.88, PLR: 7.40, NLR: 0.09, DOR: 78.00, AUC: 0.95), and for retrospective studies (sensitivity: 0.91, specificity: 0.93, AUC: 0.93).
conclusionDECT exhibits a high value in diagnosing ACL injuries. The significant diagnostic value of DECT provides clinicians with a powerful tool that enhances the accuracy and efficiency of diagnosis and optimizes patient management and treatment outcomes.
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.