SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2024
The diagnostic performance comparison between T2 mapping and Dixon against the activity of thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of MRI Dixon T2-weighted, T2 mapping, and T1 mapping for Graves' ophthalmopathy activity assessment.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Assessment of disease activity in Graves' orbitopathy.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of T2 mapping and Dixon in thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy's disease activity. Methods: Published studies were collected by systematically searching the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WANFANG. The sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were confirmed. The symmetric receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) was used to assess the threshold of T2 mapping and Dixon. Fagan's nomogram was drawn. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were applied to distinguish the sources of heterogeneity among the included studies. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Results: A total of 17 studies were included, comprising 1,455 participants. The combined sensitivity of T2 mapping was 0.70 [95% CI (0.65-0.75)], specificity was 0.84 [95% CI (0.75-0.90)], area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.78 [95% CI (0.75-0.82)], and DOR was 12. The combined sensitivity of Dixon was 0.74 [95% CI (0.58-0.85)], specificity was 0.80 [95% CI (0.58-0.93)], AUC was 0.83 [95% CI (0.80-0.86)], and DOR was 11.66. The Deeks' funnel plot showed no existing publication bias. The prospective design, partial verification bias, and blinding contributed to the heterogeneity in specificity and sensitivity. The post-test probability of T2 mapping in TAO patients' disease activity was 75%, and the post-test probability of Dixon in TAO was 87%. Conclusion: Compared with T2 mapping, Dixon presented a significantly higher sensitivity and AUC for detecting TAO disease activity. Dixon is expected to further improve the accuracy of diagnosis of TAO's disease activity.
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.