SynthesisSkeletal radiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of MRI-based synthetic CT compared to conventional CT in spinal and sacroiliac disorders: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Re: Development and validation of MRI-based radiomics model for clinical symptom stratification of extrinsic adenomyosis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundSpinal and sacroiliac disorders, such as disc herniation, sacroiliitis, and spondylarthritis, require precise imaging for diagnosis. Conventional computed tomography (CT) is widely regarded as the reference standard for evaluating cortical bone and certain structural lesions due to its superior spatial resolution and accurate Hounsfield unit quantification, whereas MRI remains superior for marrow edema, soft tissue involvement, and early inflammatory changes. MRI-based synthetic CT (sCT) offers a radiation-free alternative by generating CT-like images from MRI data. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of sCT compared to conventional CT in these disorders.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines, we searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore) and gray literature. Eligible studies compared sCT to CT in patients with spinal/sacroiliac disorders, reporting metrics like sensitivity, specificity, and agreement. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity.
resultsTen studies (n = 1028 participants) were included, focusing on degenerative spinal conditions and axial spondyloarthritis. sCT showed sensitivity of 47-94% and specificity of 83->95% for lesions (e.g., erosions, ankylosis), often superior to MRI and comparable to CT. Geometric measurements (e.g., vertebral dimensions) had high concordance (ICC = 0.788-0.978). Inter-observer agreement was moderate to excellent (κ = 0.41-0.98). Risk of bias was low in four studies but high in six, mainly due to small samples and selection issues.
conclusionsMRI-based sCT demonstrates promising diagnostic accuracy for spinal and sacroiliac disorders, potentially reducing radiation exposure. However, methodological limitations warrant larger, multicenter trials for validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41460482What 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.