SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for differentiating acute intracranial hemorrhage from contrast staining: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate differentiation between acute intracranial hemorrhage (AIH) and contrast staining (CS) on follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with acute stroke, particularly after endovascular thrombectomy, is a critical clinical challenge. Dual-energy CT (DECT), with its capability for material decomposition, has emerged as a promising solution. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the overall diagnostic accuracy of DECT for this crucial distinction. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their inception until September 30, 2025. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Twelve studies, involving 561 patients and 646 lesions, met the eligibility criteria and were included. The pooled diagnostic performance of DECT for differentiating AIH from CS was as follows: sensitivity, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.79-0.96); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00); PLR, 55.91 (95% CI: 14.64-213.53); NLR, 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04-0.23); DOR, 154.76 (95% CI: 64.55-371.02); and AUC, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99). Subgroup analysis revealed that in populations with a male proportion ≥60%, DECT demonstrated higher sensitivity, a lower NLR, and a higher AUC. Studies published in or after 2015 showed a significantly higher AUC than those published before 2015. Additionally, the subgroup of patients aged >65 years had a higher AUC compared to younger age groups. Conclusion: DECT exhibits high diagnostic performance in differentiating AIH from CS. It shows particularly superior results in populations with a higher proportion of males, in older patients, and in more recent studies. However, the presence of potential publication bias may affect the reliability of these findings, underscoring the need for further high-quality studies for validation. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/INPLASY-Protocol-8414.pdf, identifier (INPLASY2025100088).
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.