ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Can MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging reliably detect cryptorchidism? A systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNon-palpable undescended testes require accurate localisation, but the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) remains uncertain. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI-DWI for detecting clinically non-palpable undescended testes.
methodsThis PROSPERO (CRD420261411862) registered review searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL to June 6, 2026. Eligible diagnostic-accuracy studies assessed MRI-DWI against diagnostic laparoscopy or operative exploration. Two reviewers extracted 2 × 2 data, and assessed QUADAS-2 risk of bias. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using bivariate random-effects models, with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) analysis, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, and Fagan nomograms used to summarise diagnostic performance.
resultsFifteen studies were included. In seven testis-level studies (340 testes), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92.6% (95% CI 88.4-95.3%) and 94.3% (85.6-97.9%) and the HSROC area under the curve (AUC) was 0.957. In eight patient-level studies (1782 patients), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86.7% (77.1-92.7%) and 85.8% (68.8-94.3%) and the HSROC AUC was 0.917. Positive MRI-DWI increased post-test probability on the Fagan nomogram, but a negative result left a residual probability of 21%. Heterogeneity was minimal at the testis level but substantial at the patient level analysis. Deeks' test suggested small-study effects only in the testis-level analysis.
conclusionsMRI-DWI shows good-to-excellent accuracy and can support localization, operative planning, and counselling. However, a negative MRI-DWI result does not safely exclude the presence of a viable or otherwise at-risk undescended testis and leaves a clinically meaningful residual probability of disease. Therefore, negative imaging should not be used to omit operative exploration. MRI-DWI should be regarded as an adjunctive localisation tool rather than a replacement for diagnostic laparoscopy, which remains necessary for definitive evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667386What 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.