SynthesisBMC medical imaging2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2025. 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
backgroundPulmonary embolism is a significant clinical challenge with high mortality risk. Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for diagnosis but involves radiation risks. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) offers a radiation-free alternative, yet its adoption is hindered by inconsistent validation of its diagnostic accuracy. This study systematically assesses MRI's efficacy in diagnosing pulmonary embolism, incorporating a broad range of literature to ensure comprehensive analysis.
methodsRelevant studies on the diagnostic use of MRI for pulmonary embolism were collected through computer searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) databases up to May 12, 2024. Literature was screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extracted, and study quality assessed according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) standards. Data analysis was performed using Stata (versions 17.0 and 14.0) and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. Stata software was used to calculate pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio, and to plot forest plots, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was calculated, and publication bias was assessed through Deek's funnel plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test.
resultsEighteen articles involving 1,264 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that MRI for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism had a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79-0.94) and a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.97). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 14.6 (95% CI: 8.0-26.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06-0.23). The diagnostic odds ratio was 121 (95% CI: 49-299). The AUC of the SROC was 0.97. Deek's funnel plot suggested potential publication bias in the studies included.
conclusionMRI exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, demonstrating excellent diagnostic efficacy. Despite potential publication bias, MRI continues to show strong potential for clinical application.
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.